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

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sandeep V.Marne, JJ.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Vitthal Tulshiram Jadhav - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8103 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
N.K.Rajpurohit, Advocate, Vaibhav A.Sugdare, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that temporary service can be counted for pension purposes if there is a direct connection to subsequent regular employment and interruptions in service can be condoned under specific circumstances as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

Headnote:

PENSION - COMPUTATION OF PAST SERVICE FOR PENSION - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rule 33, Rule 47, Rule 48 - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, particularly Rule 33, which allows for counting past services for pension if followed without interruption, and Rule 48, which provides for the condonation of interruptions in service. The court interpreted these rules to determine that the respondent's temporary service could be counted for pension purposes despite a break in service, as the interruption was beyond the respondent's control and did not exceed five years. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to count past service for pension was justified, but clarified that the period of interruption should not be included in the qualifying service for pension.

Fact of the Case:

The State Government challenged a Tribunal's order allowing the respondent, a Project Affected Person, to have his temporary service counted for pension purposes. The respondent had been appointed temporarily as an X-ray Technician and later terminated after not being selected for a regular position. He was eventually appointed regularly after the State acknowledged a vacancy. The respondent sought to have his past service counted for pension, which the Tribunal partially granted.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent's temporary service was directly connected to his subsequent regular appointment and that the interruption in service was justifiable under the rules. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to count past service for pension but clarified that the period of interruption should not be included in the qualifying service.

Issues: Whether the temporary services rendered by the respondent can be computed as qualifying service for pension despite a break in service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules allow for the counting of past services for pension if there is no interruption, and that interruptions caused by circumstances beyond the control of the employee can be condoned. The court emphasized that the respondent's case met the criteria for condonation of interruption.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's order to count the respondent's past service for pension while excluding the period of interruption from the computation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned AGP for the Petitioners-State and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This Petition is filed by the State Government challenging the judgment and order dtd. 2/2/2022 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) allowing Original Application No.50 of 2019 filed by Respondent. By that judgment and order, the Tribunal has directed that initial temporary service of Respondent be computed only for the purpose of pension.

3. Respondent is a Project Affected Person (PAP) and has been issued a certificate to that effect by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Beed on 30/11/1999. On the strength of this PAP certificate, Respondent was engaged on the post of X-ray Technician on temporary basis for a period of 60 days on 13/3/2000. Though the appointment was temporary, he was placed on pay scale of Rs.5,000.008,000 plus admissible allowances. His services were continued even after expiry of period of 60 days. An advertisement was issued on 19/5/2007 for filing of the post of X-ray Technician on regular basis. Respondent applied in pursuance of the advertisement and participated in the selection process. He was however not selected. He filed Original Application No.320 of 2007 before Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal. However, since it was found that Respondent was less meritorious in the selection, the Original Aplication was dismissed. On account of dismissal of his Original Application, the General Hospital, Parbhani terminated Respondent from service by order dtd. 28/12/2007.

4. Respondent challenged the Tribunal's order as well as the termination order before this Court, Bench at Aurangabad by filing Writ Petition No.79 of 2008. During the course of hearing of that Petition, this Court enquired whether any post of X-ray Technician was vacant and accordingly the State Government placed before this Court a communication addressed by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Aurangabad, dtd. 11/8/2009 to the effect that one post of X-ray Technician was kept vacant and that the Government was willing to accommodate Respondent against that post. Noting the said statement made on behalf of the State Government, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 11/8/2009. Accordingly, Respondent came to be granted regular appointment to the post of X-ray Technician vide order dtd. 25/5/2009 issued by Sassoon General Hospital, Pune. It appears that Respondent filed Contempt Petition No.23 of 2010 before this Court, Bench at Aurangabad citing non-compliance of the order of this Court on the ground that the appointment was given to him was temporary. The Contempt Petition was rejected on 27/6/2011. There is however no dispute to the position that what is granted to Respondent on 25/5/2009 is a regular appointment to the post of Ex-ray Technician.

5. Respondent thereafter made representation dtd. 15/2/2014 for counting his past service from 27/3/2000 for grant of financial upgradation/time bound promotion. The request was rejected vide communication dtd. 15/3/2016 on the ground that there was break of about 2 years in his two services. Respondent has approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.1145 of 2016 which was disposed of on 20/7/2018 with a direction to the Petitioner-State to look into the matter and take a suitable decision. The Petitioner-State however rejected Respondent's case vide order dtd. 27/9/2018 holding that his past services cannot be counted considering long break in service.

6. Respondent challenged the decision dtd. 27/9/2018 before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.50 of 2019. In his Original Application, Respondent sought a relief of counting his past services from 27/3/2000 for pension and pensionary benefits as well as the benefits that he sought in his previous application dtd. 15/2/2014. The prayers made in the Original Application are reproduced below:

<WXY>"A Original

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top