SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
V.M. KANADE, M.S. SONAK, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department – Petitioner
Vs.
Shri Ravindranath Kautik Mohite – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5103 OF 2015
Decided On : 27-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajit Ram Pitale.

Pension entitlement is a right, not a charity, and the State Government must comply with orders and act responsibly in litigation.

Headnote:

PENSION - State Government - Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal - MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, G.R. dated 04/04/1983, Rule 48, Rule 30 - The court discussed the application of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, G.R. dated 04/04/1983, Rule 48, and Rule 30 in the context of the Respondent's pension entitlement and the non-compliance of the State Government with the orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The Respondent, a former government employee, sought pension entitlement after facing non-compliance and disregard of his claims by the State Government. The court found that the Respondent was entitled to pension based on his past service and that the State Government's actions were contemptuous.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Government's actions were contemptuous and that the Respondent was entitled to pension based on his past service. The court also directed the State Government to pay interest on the delayed pension and ordered compensation to be paid to the Respondent.

Issues: Non-compliance with pension entitlement, contemptuous actions by the State Government, entitlement to interest on delayed pension, and compensation for unjust stand and non-compliance of orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the application of MCS (Pension) Rules, 1982, G.R. dated 04/04/1983, Rule 48, and Rule 30, as well as the contemptuous actions of the State Government and the entitlement of the Respondent to pension and compensation.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, directed the State Government to comply with the orders, pay interest on the delayed pension, and recover compensation from the responsible officers to be paid to the Respondent.

JUDGMENT :

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in O.A. No. 909 of 2013. The impugned order was passed on 13/06/2014. Petition was filed on 15/12/2014. However, for six months, no application seeking stay of the order was moved, till the Respondent, after waiting for 10 years to receive his pension, was constrained to take out contempt proceedings. The day on which the contempt petition was filed before the MAT, on the same day, an application was moved seeking stay of the impugned order before this Court.

3. We have heard the learned AGP appearing for the Petitioners/State and Mr. Pitale, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

4. Petitioner State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the directions given by MAT, directing the State of Maharashtra to pay pension to Respondent after setting aside the impugned order, in terms of prayer clauses 9(A), (B) and (C) and also by passing consequential order i.e. accepting the lengths of services of the Respondent who had worked in different Departments of the State and Central Government, as qualifying service for pension. Further direction was given that it should be done within two months from the date of the said order after condonation of break in service

5. This is a classic case which demonstrates complete apathy and callous nature of the Officers of the State Government in not granting pension to Respondent though he was legally entitled to receive full pension from the date of his appointment till the date he attained the age of superannuation. This case demonstrates that apart from being callous, State Government Officers have shown complete disregard to the orders passed by the Tribunal and, as a result, the Respondent had to knock the doors of the MAT on three occasions and, thereafter, had to file contempt petition which is still pending before the MAT.

6. Respondent is now 73 years old and had to spend money from his pocket to seek justice from the State Government of which he was an employee and had worked in several capacities. This is a case where the Respondent initially joined one of the Departments of State of Maharashtra through regular channel viz. Employment Exchange. During the course of his career, by dint of hard work, he was selected by the MPSC and was appointed in higher cadre. During this period, he again appeared for the examination conducted by UPSC and was appointed by the Central Government on account of successfully passing the written test and interview. Finally, he was absorbed by the State Government and he worked in the Department of Medical Education till he attained the age of superannuation in 2005.

7. Respondent, with due diligence, applied for pension two years before his retirement and he gave his reasons why his entire service should be taken into consideration for the purpose of becoming eligible to claim pension.

8. Brief history regarding the Departments in which the Respondent has-worked is as under:

(A) Respondent joined the services of the State Government on 11/03/1966 as a clerk in the Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai where he worked till 01/07/1971 putting in service of 5 years and 4 months. Some employees of the said Department who were on deputation to the Rationing Department were repatriated and, as a result, Respondent was retrenched with effect from 01/07/1971. Thereafter, there was a break in his service from 01/07/1971 to 19/01/1972.

(B) From 20/01/1972, Respondent was appointed in the Small Savings Directorate (Finance Department) being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and he continued to work in that Department till 13/02/1975.

(C) Respondent then appeared for competitive examination conducted by MPSC and was selected to Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Service (MFAS) Class II




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top