Ranchodbhai Chhitabhai Solanki v. Chief Medical Superintendent And 3 Others

AGK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2021 Ranchodbhai Chhitabhai Solanki

...Petitioner

V/s.

Chief Medical Superintendent & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Sushil A. Inamdar for the petitioner.

Ms. Rupali Adhate for the respondent-MCGM.

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE:

MARCH 8, 2022 P.C.:

1.

The petitioner has instituted this writ petition dated 13th November 2019 seeking inter alia pensionary benefits. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in active service under the respondents between 24th May 1983 and 27th July 1992. 2.

We find from a document dated 1st August 1992, Exhibit 'B' to the writ petition, that the petitioner had expressed his willingness to resign from the service under the respondents and that a prayer had been made by him for clearance of all his dues. There is, however, no evidence to prove that the letter dated 1st August 1992 had reached the addressee, i.e., the Medical Officer, Municipal General Hospital. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not join duty right from 28th July 1992 and ultimately by an order dated 17th July 2014, the service of the petitioner was terminated with retrospective effect from 27th July 1997, i.e., upon completion of five years of

continuous absence from duty. Such order of termination was made over to the petitioner in course of proceedings in Prelitigation Pension Case No. 5 of 2016 before the Pension Lok Adalat. The orders passed by the Lok Adalat from time to time reveal that the petitioner was paid whatever was due to him on account of provident fund and gratuity. However, the Pension Lok Adalat having been informed of refusal of the prayer of the petitioner for pension, it closed proceedings granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law for securing pensionary benefits.

3.

It is clear from the aforesaid narration of facts that the petitioner did not complete ten (10) years' service, which could be treated as 'qualifying service' for release of pensionary benefits in his favour. Mr. Inamdar, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner's service was terminated with effect from 27th July 1997, he must be deemed to have been in service till such date and counting the period of service from 24th May 1983 till 27th July 1997, the petitioner must be held to have put in 'qualifying service' for release of pensionary benefits.

4.

The contention of Mr. Inamdar is entirely misconceived. Pension, it is well known, is deferred payment of salary. Salary is paid only if an employee works. The petitioner, on his own showing, was continuously absent from 28th July 1992. The respondents waited for 5 (five) years, i.e., till 27th July 1997 and it was with effect from such date that the order of termination was passed after the petitioner's continuous absence from duty for five (5) years. Such period can never

be included for computing the qualifying service for release of pension. Even otherwise, the petitioner had expressed willingness to resign as far back as on 1st August, 1992. 5.

We do not see any reason to hold that the respondents committed any illegality in denying the petitioner pensionary benefits. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. No costs.

6.

We record that Mr. Inamdar has spared no effort to ensure that the petitioner obtains relief as claimed. We record our appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. Inamdar who has pursued the case of the petitioner upon being appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date:

2022.03.09 10:50:21 +0530 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI