Gangadhar Hanmantrao Yepurwar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 WP 6417/2016 group

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No. 6417 of 2016 Govind s/o Vitthal Talegave, Age 59 years, R/o Shivneri, Lal Mandi, Begampura, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

Smt. R.P. Gour, Assistant Government Pleader,

2 WP 6417/2016 group With Writ Petition No. 6419 of 2016 Sunderlal s/o Udaybhan Kanise, Age 61 years, R/o Near Tuljabhavani Mandir, Pahadsingpura, Makbara Road, .. Petitioner.

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

Smt. R.P. Gour, Assistant Government Pleader,

3 WP 6417/2016 group With Writ Petition No. 6435 of 2016 Gangadhar s/o Hanmantrao Yepurwar, Age 60 years, R/o Plot No.24, Jagdamba Niwas, Mhasoba Galli, Surewadi, .. Petitioner.

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

Smt. R.P. Gour, Assistant Government Pleader,

4 WP 6417/2016 group With Writ Petition No. 8388 of 2016 Venkat s/o Ganpatrao Limgave, Age 61 years, R/o N-11, B-Sector, Netaji Subhash Chandra Nagar, HUDCO, T.V. Center, .. Petitioner.

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

Shri. S.B. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader,

5 WP 6417/2016 group Coram: T.V. NALAWADE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

Date: 2 March 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT:

Rule, rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard both the sides by consent for final disposal.

In all the petitions direction is sought against the University to send revised pension proposal as it is the grievance of the petitioners that though benefit of Government Resolution dated 7-4-2011 was given to them while in service, the benefit is not extended for pensionary benefits and the pension is not fixed accordingly. For giving one instance, they have produced record in respect of one Shamrao Pradhan showing that the benefit was considered for fixation of the pension and the pension was fixed accordingly. There is one correspondence made by the Government with the University dated 10-122015. It also shows that the Government has

6 WP 6417/2016 group informed that the employees who were in service as on 7-4-2011 or who retired thereafter were entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution.

It appears that when the proposal was considered it was not certain as to whether the benefit of this Government Resolution could have been given and that can be found in the letter addressed to the Joint Director, Higher Education dated 2-7-2015 by the office of the Accountant General.

In view of these circumferences, the petitions are allowed. Direction is given only to the extent of consideration of the aforesaid Government Resolution for the benefit purpose. The University is directed to send the proposal for revised pension with aforesaid clarification. The University and the Joint Director, Higher Education are to complete this exercise within two months from today and the office of the

7 WP 6417/2016 group Accountant General within three months thereafter. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Sd/- Sd/- (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl