Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 1134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
Rangnath Limbarao Chikatkar – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Department of School Education and Ors. – Respondents
901 Writ Petition No. 2486 of 2020
Decided On : 13-06-2024
For the Petitioner:Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri V.M. Kagne, AGP.
The petitioner is deemed superannuated on 31.12.2015 and is entitled to pension benefits from the 7th Pay Commission, but not in-service benefits due to superannuation timing.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 - Rule 17 - The petitioner claims entitlement to 7th Pay Commission benefits post superannuation after turning 58 years. Court determined superannuation date as 31.12.2015 based on birth date. The contention for retirement on 31/01/2016 deemed fallacious. (Paras 5, 8, 9)
(B) Pensionary Benefits - The court acknowledged the petitioner's right to pension benefits, including any enhancements from the 7th Pay Commission, despite not receiving in-service benefits. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, born on 01.01.1958, contested his retirement date after completing 58 years on 31.12.2015. He argued for retirement on 31/01/2016 to avail 7th Pay Commission benefits.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner would not receive in-service benefits of the 7th Pay Commission but is entitled to pension benefits if applicable.
Issues: The main issues included the correct date for superannuation and entitlement to benefits arising from the 7th Pay Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the prescribed rules for superannuation and pension entitlements were to be followed, clarifying ambiguities in the applicable rules.
Result: Writ Petition disposed off; rule discharged.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue of superannuation date and benefits (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. clarification on superannuation rules (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. entitlement to pension benefits post-retirement (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. conclusion and recommendations for clarity in rules (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. need for clarity in application of retirement rules (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The issue in this petition is as to what would be the date on which the Petitioner would be deemed to have superannuated on completion of 58 years of employment and whether, the 7th pay Commission’s recommendations brought into effect from 01.01.2016, would be available to the Petitioner, if he attains the age of superannuation on 31.12.2015. An offshoot of this issue would also be as to whether, the Petitioner, as a superannuated employee, would gain benefits of the 7th pay Commission’s recommendations in relation to his retiral benefits and revision of pension from time to time.
3. The Petitioner is undisputedly born on 01.01.1958. Undisputedly, his retirement is on completion of 58 years. It is equally undisputed that the Petitioner would complete 58 years of age, on 31.12.2015 and would enter his 59th year on 01.01.2016. The 7th pay Commission’s recommendations have been undisputedly brought into effect from 01.01.2016.
4. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been forcefully retired from service on 31.12.2015 and that he should have retired on 31/01/2016. He was working as an Assistant Teacher with Respondent No.5 School.
5. Insofar as calculation of the completed years of age of the Petitioner having been born on 01.01.1958, he would complete 58 years of age, on 31.12.2015. There can be no debate that insofar as in-service benefits under the 7th pay Commission’s recommendations are concerned, a person in service would be eligible for continued salary benefits and other consequential benefits prescribed under the 7th pay Commission’s recommendations. The Petitioner having completed 58 years in employment on 31.12.2015, could not have been continued in employment or his superannuation could not have been postponed in the light of Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, “the MEPS Rules, 1981”).
6. Relevant portion of Rule 17 reads thus:-
“17. Superannuation and re-employment (1) An employee, other than Class IV employee, shall retire from service on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years and under no circumstances he shall be granted an extension in service beyond that age. The age of superannuation of a lower grade employee shall be 60 years:
Provided that, a teacher or a Head of a recognised private secondary school in the Vidarbha Region of the State who was permanent in service on the 31st December 1965, irrespective whether he continues to serve in the same school or has joined [some other school after 31st December 1965] shall retire on the date on which he attains the age of 60 years.
Note: If the date of superannuation of an employee happens to fall in the middle of the month, he shall be continued in service till the last day of the month in which the date of superannuation falls.”
7. A plain reading of the above Note below Rule 17, indicates that if an employee happens to attain the age of superannuation in the middle of the month, he is required to be continued in service till the last date of the month in which the date of superannuation falls. For example, if the Petitioner is to complete 58 years of age on 15.01.2016, or any time thereafter in the said month, he would have to be continued till 31.01.2016. Nevertheless, Rule 17 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 only talks of the ‘middle of the month’. There is no clarity on this issue. As such, for reference purpose, we are relying upon Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982, more particularly Note-1 below Rule 10 which pres
