Vinayak Madhavrao Kadam And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 W.P. No. 9661/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

908. WRIT PETITION NO. 9661 OF 2016 VINAYAK MADHAVRAO KADAM AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respts. No. 1,2,4 & 5 Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. DHAVALE, J J.

DATE : 25th APRIL, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

1.

Mr. Mukhedkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners were working in the establishment of erstwhile Gram Panchayat, Bhokar District Nanded. Same was subsequently converted into Municipal Council, Bhokar in the year 2009. Petitioners were working with the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, Bhokar since long time. Some of the petitioners were working since 1979. They were appointed on different posts in Gram Panchayat, Bhokar, as detailed in paragraph No.4 of the petition. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, petitioners were absorbed

2 W.P. No. 9661/2016 as employees of the Municipal Council, Bhokar, upon establishment of the Municipal Council. Past services of the petitioners were counted for the purpose of seniority but for the purpose of pension and other benefits, service from the date of establishment of the Municipal Council is counted. Same is illegal. Petitioners' services rendered with the Gram Panchayat should be counted and treated at par with Government servants. Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act, 1965 would come to the aid of the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that an employee of the Municipal Council, Ardhapur, is given benefits of leave encashment and gratuity under the orders of Lokayukta, Mumbai, dated 11th April 2017 in case No. LOAA/COM/2616/2015 (T-2).

In case of Municipal Council, Bhadrawati District Chandrapur under Govt. Resolution dated 3rd June 2000, past services rendered by Gram Panchayat employees were counted for the purpose of pension. The petitioners cannot be discriminated. The State Government has power to take decision in that regard. The Municipal Council on its part itself negatived the case of the petitioners. It ought to have forwarded the case to the Government.

2.

Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader submit that past services rendered by

3 W.P. No. 9661/2016 the petitioners with the erstwhile Gram Panchayat cannot be considered for the purpose of pension. Services rendered with the Gram Panchayat is non-pensionable service.

3.

We have considered the submissions. The order creating new posts for the purpose of employing the petitioners who were working with erstwhile Gram Panchayat states that their services shall be counted from the date petitioners are in the service with the Municipal Council. Prior service rendered by the petitioners with the Gram Panchayat is not considered for pension purpose.

4.

From 1st November 2005 DCPS scheme came into force. In view of that, Govt. resolution in case of Bhadrawati Municipal Council passed in the year 2000 would not be relevant in this case. Admittedly, prior to 1st November 2005 petitioners were in service of the Gram Panchayat and said service was non-pensionable. Petitioners were governed by the service conditions applicable to the employees in service of the Gram Panchayat. It is only when the Municipal Council is constituted, petitioners' service would come within the ambit and purview of pensionable service but as the Municipal Council is established in 2009, the M.C.S.R. (Pension) Rules, 1979 would not apply and the DCPS scheme would apply. In

4 W.P. No. 9661/2016 view of above, it is not possible to accept contention of the petitioners that past services rendered with the Gram Panchayat be treated for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 5.

As far as services rendered with Gram Panchayat to be counted for the purpose of gratuity and leave encashment is concerned, the said reliefs are already granted by the Lokayukta, Mumbai, as mentioned above, and in view of that the petitioners shall apply to the Municipal Council for the said purpose and the Municipal Council in consultation with the State Government shall decide it, within a period of six months.

6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( A. M. DHAVALE ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE Madkar