Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Shashikant S.Chunekar And Ors vs Union Of India Through The ... on 9 February, 2021

Author: Riyaz I. Chagla

Bench: K.K.Tated, Riyaz I. Chagla

                                                                13.95494.20-wpst.odt


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Basavraj                         CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
G. Patil
Digitally signed by
Basavraj G. Patil
                                     WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.95494/2020
Date: 2021.02.10
18:24:55 +0530


                      Shashikant S. Chunekar & Ors.             ..... Petitioners

                             Vs.

                      Union of India & Ors.                     ..... Respondents


                      Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy with Saikumar Ramamurthy &
                      Ms. Jayasree Pillai for the Petitioners


                                                 CORAM:    K.K.TATED &
                                                           RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2021 P.C. 1 Heard. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking direction against the Respondents to treat each of the Petitioners as pension optees and be granted pension and consequential benefits under the Export Inspection Council, Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1981 and make the necessary changes in the service records of each of the Petitioners to reflect their status as pension optees.

2 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondents had floated the schemes in the year 1981, 1985, 1987 and 1989 and offered to switchover to the pension scheme. He submits that at that time, the Petitioners did not opt the CPF Scheme. Therefore, the Basavraj G. Patil 1/2 13.95494.20-wpst.odt pension scheme is applicable to them. But Respondent No.1 is not granting any pension or not making any entry in the service book to that effect. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3 When this Court called upon the Petitioners to point out any application and/or representation made by the Petitioners to the Respondents for the same relief, he seeks a week's time to take instructions in this behalf. Time granted.

4. Liberty granted to the Petitioners to place on record an additional affidavit in support of the Writ Petition, if they so desire.

S.O. to 18.02.2021.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.) Basavraj G. Patil 2/2