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

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SAVITA GANGARAM CHIMANE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS – Respondent
WP 12308/2016



Advocates:
['IRALE PATIL D R', 'COPY SERVED ON GP', '', 'GP', 'TOPE SAMBHAJI S', 'SHINDE RAVINDRA S', 'R/ SERVED', 'GOVT PLEADER']

WP-9933-2016 aw wps judg.odt

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.9933 OF 2016

Kamalbai W/o Venkatrao Nipanikar,

Age 68 years, Occ. Housewife,

R/o: A/p – Nipanikar Niwas,

Signal Camp, Latur.

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary,

Finance Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032.

2.

The Accountant General – II (A & E)

Pension Wing Old Building

In front of Ravi Bhavan,

Nagpur.

3.

The Education Ofcer,

Z.P. Secondary,

Latur.

4.

The Head Master,

Shree. Marwadi Rajasthan Vidhyalaya,

Latur, Tq – Dist – Latur.

...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.12308 OF 2016

Smt. Savita w/o Gangaram Chimane,

Age 45 years, Occ. Household,

R/o: Ridhi-Sidhi Apartment,

Samarth Nagar, Jalna.

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

(Copy to be served upon G.P.

High Court Bombay bench at Aurangabad)

2.

The Accountant General – II (A & E)

Maharashtra, Nagpur.

3.

Education Ofcer (Secondary),

Zilla Parishad, Jalna.

4.

Head Master, Machodhari,

WP-9933-2016 aw wps judg.odt

(2)

Vidhyalaya, Ambad,

Tq. Ambad, Dist – Jalna.

5.

Smt. Sadhana w/o Gangaram Shinde,

Age: 50 years, Occu: Household & Agril.,

R/o. Mahankala, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.

...Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.11256 OF 2016

Mandodhari W/o Uttam Mule,

Age 65 years, Occ. Housewife,

R/o: At: Birsingpur, Post: Dewulghat,

Tq. & Dist. Buldhana

...Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary,

Finance Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032.

2.

The State of Maharashtra

Through its Principal Secretary,

Agriculture, Dairy Development, Animal Husbandry,

and Fisheries Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032.

3.

The Accountant General – II (A & E)

Pension Wing Old Building

In front of Ravi Bhavan,

Nagpur.

4.

The Divisional Joint Director,

Agricultural Ofcer,

Division, Pune.

5.

The Joint Director,

Agricultural Department,

Aurangabad.

Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad.

6.

The District Superintendent Agricultural Ofcer,

Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

7.

The Sub Divisional Agricultural/

Soil Conservation Ofce,

Bhokardhan, Tq. Bhokardhan,

Dist. Jalna.

WP-9933-2016 aw wps judg.odt

(3)

8.

Taluka Agricultural Ofcer,

Bhokardhan, Tq. Bhokardhan,

Dist. Jalna.

...Respondents

…

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr. S.K. Mathpati, Advocate for the

Petitioner in WP/11256/2016.

Mr. D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/12308/2016.

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Respondent Nos.1

to 8 in WP/11256/2016).

Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP/12308/2016.

Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in WP/12308/2016.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2021

PRONOUNCED ON : 28th OCTOBER, 2021

JUDGMENT (PER S.G. MEHARE, J.):-

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by

the consent of the parties.

2.

In these writ petitions, the petitioners are widows. They had

performed the second marriage during the subsistence of the frst

marriage of their husbands.

3.

All the petitioners are claiming the same relief of family

pension on the death of their husbands under rule 116 (6) (a) (1) of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

4.

The brief facts of each case are as under :-

(a) In Writ Petition No.9933 of 2016, the petitioner married her

husband since his frst wife did not conceive until 1961. She has

delivered two female and two male children out of wedlock. The

WP-9933-2016 aw wps judg.odt

(4)

frst wife of her husband predeceased her after his retirement.

After the death of the frst wife, her husband submitted a revised

pension proposal and nominated her for family pension. The

revised family pension proposal was sent to respondent no.2, the

Accountant General, Nagpur. In the meantime, the pension was

revised. On 29.02.2016, her husband died. She submi

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