Bombay High Court
Sangpal Sopanrao Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 28 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 310
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
{1}
wp876118.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8761 OF 2018
Sangpal Sopanrao Bhosale,
age: 60 years, Occ: Pensioner,
R/o Nalegaon, Tal. Chakur,
District Latur. Petitioner
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
02 The Deputy Director of
Education, Latur Division,
Latur.
03 The Education Ofcer rPrimary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
04 The Zilla Parishad, Latur,
through its Chief Executive Ofcer. Respondents
Mr.A.V.Patil rIndrale), advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.D.Ghayal, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr.U.B.Bondar, advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND
S.M.GAVHANE, J J.
DATE : 28th February, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Z.A.Haq, J.):
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had worked with Respondent No.4-Zilla Parishad since the date of his ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:10:15 ::: {2} wp876118.odt appointment i.e. from 19th of August, 1981 till he attained the age of superannuation on 31st December 2016, and during service he was treated as regular employee for all purposes, he is not given the pensionary and consequential benefts. The petitioner is not given the pensionary and consequential benefts on the ground that he was not having the training qualifcations i.e. Diploma in Education.
3 It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in employment for more than the period required for being eligible for pensionary and consequential benefts i.e. he had completed the qualifying service to be eligible for pensionary and consequential benefts.
4 The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the judgment given by the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.6143 of 2016 [Smt. Umabai w/o Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, and other connected matters, decided on 4 th July, 2019], in which it is held that the teachers appointed prior to 1st July, 1972, who were not possessing D.Ed. qualifcations, were deemed to be trained teachers and were held to be eligible for pensionary benefts. The Division Bench upheld the claim of the ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:10:15 ::: {3} wp876118.odt petitioners in those petitions fnding that the appointments of those teachers were prior to issuance of the Government Resolution dated 4th October, 1983. In the present case also, the appointment of the petitioner was prior to 4 th October, 1983. We fnd that the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the judgment given in the case of Smt. Umabai w/o Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, and other connected matters, clinches the issue, has substance and is required to be accepted. 5 Though the learned advocate for the Respondents No.3 and 4 opposed the petition, he has not been able to point out that the issue is not covered by the above referred judgment. 6 Hence, the following order:
[i] The communication issued by the Respondent No.4 on 16th May, 2018, is quashed.
[ii] It is held that the petitioner is entitled for pensionary and consequential benefts, treating him eligible for pension considering his length of service from the date of his initial appointment till he superannuated on attaining the age of ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:10:15 ::: {4} wp876118.odt superannuation.
[iii] The Respondents No.3 and 4 shall forward the pension case of the petitioner to the concerned authority within two months.
[iv] The concerned authority shall fnalise the pension case of the petitioner and shall ensure that the amount is disbursed to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the papers by it.
[v] In case there is any default in complying with these directions, the defaulting authority will be liable to pay compensatory costs of Rs.50,000/- rRs.Fifty thousand) to the petitioner.
7 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
S.M.GAVHANE Z.A.HAQ
JUDGE JUDGE
adb
::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 12:10:15 :::