The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of Planning, Mumbai v. Murari Vistari Lohakare
18-WP-2256-23.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2256 of 2023 The State of Maharashtra and others.
vs.
Murari Vistari Lohakare and another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms N. P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader petitioners/State. Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE :- 6th APRIL, 2023 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur, in Original Application Nos.498 of 2021 and 499 of 2021 by which the Original Application preferred by the respondents has been allowed and the respondents have been directed to be treated as permanent employees from the date of his initial appointment as 'Muster Assistant' till the age of superannuation. The petitioners have been directed to grant pensionary benefits to the respondents as per Rules.
Ms N. P. Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners has invited our attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6531-6533 of 2022 (Shaikh Miya s/ o Shaikh Chand etc. vs. State of Maharashtra) decided on 07.09.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that for the purposes of reckoning pensionable services, the date 31.03.1997 has to be taken into consideration. She submitted that a similar issue has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition 5746/2019 (Dilip s/o Laxman
18-WP-2256-23.odt 2 Katlawar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.) on 21.03.2023 and the relief has been modified accordingly. There was no justification on the part of the Tribunal in directing the services of the respondent to be taken into consideration from the date of initial appointment. Shri N. R.Saboo, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submits that the respondents would be satisfied, if they are granted pensionary benefits by treating the relevant date for the same as 31.03.1997.
Hence for the reasons contained in Dilip s/o Laxman Katlawar (supra), the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 498 of 2021 and 499 of 2021 is partly modified. Instead of the directions issued by the Tribunal in the order dated 15.02.2022, it is held that the respondents would be entitled to pensionary benefits in accordance with law by treating their entry in service from 31.03.1997. The pensionary benefits in that be released within a period of three months from today.
Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Andurkar..