Gangadhar Kishanrao Kadam And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1330 OF 2016 Pandit s/o Gallusingh Jadhav age 61 years, occ. pensioner r/o Vivekanand Nagar Old Pedgaon Road, Prakash s/o Ambadas Gaikwad age 61 years, occ. pensioner r/o Lokashangar, B.Raghunath Road, Infront of Maruti Temple Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Mohd. Abdul Matin age 61 years, occ. pensioner r/o Haji Abdul hameed Colony Parva Road, Parbhani Kashinath s/o Manikrao jadhav age 61 years, occ. pensioner r/o Vrundavan Colony, karegaon Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Jagannath Dagdobarao Deshmukh age 60 years, occ. pensioner r/o Sant Meera Nagar Jayakawadi to HUDCO Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Babu s/o Sakharam Dhere age 60 years, occ. pensioner r/o Rameshwar Nagar, Parbhani 7.

Bhimrao s/o Sitaram Deshmukh age 60 y ears, occ. pensioner r/o Vridavan Colony Karegon Road, Parbhani

{2} 8.

Madhukar s/o Gangadharrao Dahale age 60 years, occ. pensioner r/o Near R.R. Petrol Pump Basmath Road, Parbhani 9.

Devidas s/o narayanrao Kalane age 59 years, occ. pensioner r/o 114, Narayan Nivas Yashodhan Nagar Near Kalyan Mandap, Parbhani 10.

Pandurang s/o Shankarrao Bansode age 59 years, occ. pensioner r/o Parvatinagar, Jayakwadi HUDCO Road, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Town Planning & Municipal Administration Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

The Director of Municipal Admnistration, Vorli, Mumbai The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division Aurangabad.

The District Collector The Accountant General II Nagpur The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Parbhani Respondents

{3} WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11374 OF 2016 Gangadhar s/o Kishanrao Kadam age 58 years, occ. pensioner r/o Krushi Sarthi Colony Basmat Road, AT Post Parbhani Mohd. Samiuddin Mohd. Samsauddin age 58 years, occ. pensioner r/o Masum Colony, Subedarnagar Road Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.

Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Town Planning & Municipal Administration Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

The Director of Municipal Admnistration, Vorli, Mumbai The Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division Aurangabad.

The District Collector The Accountant General II Nagpur The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Parbhani Respondents Mr. S.K. Patil, advocate for petitioners.

Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 5. Mr. S.S. Bora, advocate for respondent no.6.

{4} CORAM : R.M.BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 26th FEBRUARY, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. ) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

Petitioners were employed in the erstwhile Municipal Council Parbhani and after formation of the Municipal Corporation, they were absorbed in Corporation services. Petitioners contend that by virtue of the orders passed by the State Government on 22.10.2010 / 04.11.2010, they have been absorbed in the State services. The order passed by the Commissioner referred to above, declares that petitioners would be entitled to claim the benefits under the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme. It is directed in the said order to the Municipal Corporation to remit the amount of contribution to the State Government for disbursement of the pensionary benefits to the petitioners.

Petitioners got retired on attaining the age of superannuation and are claiming pensionary benefits from the State Government. It is the stand of the State Government that since the petitioners were not actually posted by issuing posting orders, although there are orders passed on 22.10.2010 and 04.11.2010, directing their absorption in the State services, they cannot be presumed to be government employees. Petitioners, until their date of retirement,

{5} continued to function as the employees of the Municipal Corporation. The State Government thus, refused to treat petitioners as the State employees and claimed they shall have to be paid pension amount out of the funds of the Municipal Corporation. It is the contention of the Municipal Corporation that the monetary contribution of each of the petitioners together with Corporation's contribution has been transmitted to the State Government and as such, it is the responsibility of the State Government to disburse the amount of pension. It has also been pointed out that the State authorities have directed the Municipal Corporation to disburse the amount of pentionery benefits to the petitioners.

The issue raised in the instant petitions is no more res integra and is covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Bandopant Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 7865/2014 and connected matters decided on 28.04.2016. In identical circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has ruled that it is the responsibility of the Municipal Corporation to pay the pensionary benefits to the employees since they were actually not awarded posting by the State Government and as such, shall be deemed to be the employees of the Corporation. In view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in identical matters, instant petition also deserves to be disposed of with identical directions. Learned counsel for Municipal Corporation states on instructions that the monetary contribution of each of the petitioners has been forwarded to the State Government and on

{6} receipt of the amount from the State Government, the dues payable to the petitioners would be paid forthwith by the Municipal Corporation. In the circumstances, respondent-State is directed to return back the monetary contribution deposited by the Municipal Corporation with the State towards pension amount payable to the petitioners together with interest which is liable to be passed on to petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

7.

On receipt of the amount by the Municipal Corporation, pensionary benefits payable to each of the petitioners shall be paid together with arrears, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the amount from the State Government. Petitioners, in the meanwhile, shall comply with the requirements of furnishing necessary information / documents with the Municipal Corporation. 8.

Rule made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. K. K. SONAWANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE dyb