1016.22wp etc

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

902 WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2022

GANESH DNYANDEO SABLE

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

WITH

904 WRIT PETITION NO.1247 OF 2022

MAHADEV BHIMRAO RAUT

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

….

Mr S. A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for petitioners;

Mr S. B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4

Mr P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondent No.5 in

WP/1247/2022

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

AND

ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATE : 20th July, 2022

PER COURT:

1.

In both these petitions, the petitioners are identically placed.

In the first petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B)

and (C), which read as under :-

“B)

By issuing writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature

it may be held that the petitioner is entitled to get the

benefit of old pension scheme i.e., Maharashtra Civil

Services (Pension) Rule 1982 and Maharashtra Civil

Services (Commutation of Pension) Rule 1984 and

1016.22wp etc

(2)

General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF) and for that

purpose issue necessary orders.

C)

By issuing writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction in the like nature

the respondent authorities may kindly be direct to

extend the benefit to the petitioner under the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rule 1982 and

Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)

Rule 1984 and General Provident Fund Scheme (GPF)

and further direct them to make contribution towards

the same pension scheme and General Provision Fund

Scheme.”

2.

Identical prayer clauses have been set out in the second writ

petition.

WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2022

3.

In the first petition, the petitioner Shri. Ganesh Dnyandeo

Sable responded to an advertisement dated 01/09/2005 that was

published for filling up the post of “Shikshan Sevak”. The

petitioner initially was recruited as a “Shikshan Sevak” against a

permanent vacant post of an “Assistant Teacher” pursuant to the

final selection list published on 10/10/2005. By the appointment

order dated 30/11/2005, the petitioner was inducted in service as a

“Shikshan Sevak”.

1016.22wp etc

(3)

WRIT PETITION NO.1247 OF 2022

4.

In the second petition, the petitioner Mahadev Bhimrao

Raut responded to the advertisement dated 01/09/2005 and

applied for the post of “Shikshan Sevak”. The final selection list

was published on 10/10/2005. By the appointment order dated

30/11/2005, he was appointed on 30/11/2005.

5.

The grievance of both the petitioners is, that they should be

granted the benefits of the old pension scheme under the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The issue

raised before us is, as to whether the petitioners would be entitled

to the benefits of the old pension scheme in the light of the

Government Resolution dated 31/10/2005. The dates of the

advertisement, selection and the actual appointment orders, are

undisputed.

6.

The contention of the petitioners is, that as the select list

was published prior to the cut-off date, which is 01/11/2005,

though their appointment orders have been issued after the cut-off

date and they have joined subsequently, it should be presumed

that their selection, prior to the issuance of the appointment orders

and their joining should be the deemed date of entering into

1016.22wp etc

(4)

employment. Alternatively, it is canvassed that, as the selection

process was completed prior to the cut-off date, the delay caused

in issuing the appointment orders, should not be attributed to the

petitioners. It is not their fault that, though they were selected

prior to the cut-off date, their appointment orders were issued

subsequently.

7.

The learned A.G.P