Sheikh Nasar S/O Sheikh Chand v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Chief Secretary, Higher And Technical Education Deptt., Mumbai And Others

1 mca 679.2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 679 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 5325 of 2016 (D) [Sheikh Nasar S/o Sheikh Chand ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department and ors.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. I. G. Meshram, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner Mrs. K. R. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the respondents 1 to 3 Mr. K. S. Narwade, Advocate for respondent 4 CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J J.

DATED : 15-3 -202 Petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 10-3-2017 in Writ Petition 5325/2016.

2.

The order dated 10-3-2017 records that the fact that the petitioner has received pension and gratuity is not in dispute. It is further recorded that the payment of pension and gratuity is delayed, and therefore, interest in terms of Rules 129(a) and 129(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 is payable. The order under review directs the respondents to pass appropriate order in relation to the entitlement of the petitioner to interest.

3.

While the order dated 10-3-2017 was passed in the presence of learned counsel for the parties and after

2 mca 679.2019.odt hearing the learned counsel, it is submitted in the review application that the observation that the petitioner has received the pension and gratuity is factually incorrect. It is submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned and granted pension at two third rate, and as on the date of the order dated 10-3-2017, the petitioner was not aware that the pension fell short of his entitlement in law. 4.

We are not inclined to entertain the review application. It would be more appropriate, if the petitioner files a substantive petition questioning the quantum of pension, and we permit the petitioner to do so.

5.

Review application is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to prefer independent and substantive petition questioning the quantum of pension sanctioned. (Mrs. Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (Rohit B. Deo, J.) wasnik YUVRAJ WASNIK