Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGEHON'BLE, ASHWIN DAMODAR BHOBE
Anjali Anand Khare - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
WP/77/2022
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Claim for pension - Petitioner sought regularization of services and pension benefits after superannuation - Court found no specific ban order applicable to the Petitioner’s appointment, thus allowing her claim for pension. (Paras 12, 14, 20)
(B) Employment Law - Regularization of services - The court emphasized that the absence of a specific ban order on recruitment invalidates claims of illegality in appointments made during the ban period. (Paras 12, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was appointed in 1987 and faced issues regarding regularization and pension due to a claimed ban on recruitment. The Petitioner was excluded from regularization despite receiving salary from government grants until 2016.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Petitioner was in regular service and entitled to pensionary benefits, directing the University to forward her pension proposal to the State Government.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the Petitioner’s appointment and the applicability of the recruitment ban.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a specific ban order meant the Petitioner’s appointment was valid, and she was entitled to pension benefits.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Leave to add prayer clause (d-1) with regard to the claim for pension. Addition be carried out forthwith.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits on instructions that since the Petitioner would superannuate in March, 2025, prayer clause (d) will not be pressed. The learned Senior Advocate on instructions submits that the Petitioner is now concerned with the Pension since she would be helpless after superannuation if the pension is not paid. All other issues are not significant for her considering the importance of pension.
4. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a), (b) & (d-1)which read as under :
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 directing the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to condone/set aside all the objections raised against her and her services be regularised under the salary head of the Maharashtra State Government- Grant-in-Aid Salary budget.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 directing the Respondent No. 3 to continue the payment of salary grant to the Respondent No. 4 since date of joining of the Petitioner.
(d-1) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 1,2,3 to disburse the pension to the Petitioner on her superannuation and all other post retiral benefits in a time bound manner.”
5. The dates and sequence of events are relevant in this case which bring up peculiar facts and circumstances. We would summarise the same as under :
(a) The State Government is said to have introduced a Government Resolution dated 4.9.1986 with the title as under :
(b) The University issued an order of appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Assistant, on 14.2.1987.
(c) The Petitioner received a time bound promotion after 12 years, on 21.4.1999.
(d) The Joint Director of Higher Education, Respondent No. 3, informed the University, Respondent No. 4, vide its Communication dated 12.11.2003, that the salary expenditure incurred on the salaries of 36 employees, is being refused by the Government and that they cannot be accommodated under the Grant-in-aid Salary Budget.
(e) Respondent No. 2 Director of Higher Education, Maharashtra State, informed Respondent No. 3 on 31.12.2003 and addressed a copy to Respondent No. 4 University, that out of the 36 cases, 32 cases would be regularised and 4 cases would be excluded from the regularization. The Petitioner is included in these 4 excluded cases.
(f) The University requested the Government vide its Communication dated 17.3.2004, to regularize the cases of the 4 excluded employees.
(g) On 8.7.2009, the Petitioner was promoted as a Senior Assistant and a confirmation order was issued on 26.3.2011.
(h) On 21.3.2012, the Petitioner received the benefit of “Assured Career Progression Scheme” (second benefit).
(i) On 8.1.2015, the Petitioner was promoted as an Assistant Section Officer.
(j) On 23.5.2018, the University informed the Petitioner that the Department of Higher and Technical Education has taken an objection on the appointment of the Petitioner, as in 1987, on the ground that she was recruited when there was a ban period.
(k) On 28.2.2020, the University informed the Petitioner that the Government has declined to enter her name in the Shalarth Pranali.
(l) On 30.3.2021, Respondent No. 2 informed the Divisional Joint Director, Higher and Technical Education, Pune to convey to the University that it can absorb the Petitioner under University’s funds instead of State’s Grant-in-aid.
(m) On 21.6.2021, Respondent No. 3 informed the University that the State Government cannot accept the liability of the Petitioner’s salary and her post retiral benefits under the State’s Grant-in-a
The absence of a specific ban order on recruitment invalidates claims of illegality in appointments, entitling the Petitioner to pension benefits.
A retired employee is entitled to pension based on documented employment, and denial without valid reasons is unlawful.
The liability to pay the pension and other benefits payable under the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 would be that of the State Government and not the University o....
The right to pension is a constitutional right that cannot be taken away without due process, and similarly situated employees must be treated equally under the law.
The court held that actions taken by authorities without following due process to invalidate service and withhold pension are illegal and unenforceable.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
