Writ Petition No.4639 of 2005. Case: State Of Maharashtra; Director Vs M G Dingankar. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.4639 of 2005 |
| Counsel | P P Kakade, Anurag Jain |
| Judges | Ranjana Desai, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 227; Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Rules 23 |
| Judgement Date | March 04, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
The State of Maharashtra has challenged in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India judgment and order dated 23/11/04 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) in Original Application No. 759 of 2003. We must begin with the gist of the facts.
The respondent was appointed as Electrician Instructor in the Government of Maharashtra in December, 1959. He submitted his resignation on 30/10/74 with a month?s notice while he was working as a Group Instructor. The said resignation was accepted. According to the respondent he had preferred a representation to the Government of Maharashtra requesting that his case be considered for pension. However, the representation was not favourably considered. The respondent contends that though he had resigned he has to be treated as having been retired from service. His case is thathe had served on a substantive post with the Government for 15 years and as per provisions of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ("BCS Rules" for short) and as per the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 ("MCS Rules" for short) he is entitled to some kind of pension. On this basis the respondent filed original application praying that a suitable direction be given to the Government of Maharashtra to grant him pension. The petitioners contested the application. The petitioners filed their affidavit-in-reply. The petitioners contended that the respondent had voluntarily resigned and hence he was not eligible for grant of pension.
The Tribunal by the impugned order directed the State Government to consider the case of the respondent under Rule 23 of the MCS Rules and grant the respondent pension in accordance with the said rules within three months from the date of the order.
We have heard Mr. Kakade, learned AGP in support of the petition. Learned AGP submitted that the Tribunal erred in giving a direction to the State Government to consider the respondent?scase under Section 23 of the MCS Rules. He submitted that the respondent had resigned from service before completing 20 years and as such he is not entitled to pension. Learned AGP pointed out that the respondent had resigned in the year 1974 and, therefore, he is governed by the BCS Rules and not MCS Rules. Therefore, Rule 23 can have no application to the present case.
As against this learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no interference is necessary with the impugned...
To continue reading
Request your trial