Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mumbai And Others

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3497 OF 2019 PETITIONERS :- 1.Gulam Mustafa Gulam Mehmood, aged about 50 years,Occup Nil 2.Gulam Siddique Gulam Mehmood, aged about 42 years, Occup.Nil 3.Kamrus-Sahar Gulam Mehmood, aged about 40 years, Occup.Nil All R/o Gadhiward, Near Jama Masjid, Pusad, Dist.Yavtmal.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1.The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2.The Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Amravati Region Amravati.

3. The Collector, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.

4.The Municipal Council, Pusad- through its Chief Officer, Pusad, District Yavatmal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mohammad Ateeque Abdul Mushtaque counsel for the petitioners. Mr.A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Anand Deshpande, counsel for respondent No.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2/3 CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 25.08 .20 .

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) 1.

Heard.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has produced before us a photostat copy of the communication addressed to petitioner No.3 by Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pusad. The communication is of the date of 23.08.2021. It is taken on record and marked '

A' for the purpose of identification. By the document '

A', respondent No.4 has allowed the application of the petitioners for grant of pensionary benefits to them as per the rules, after the death of their father in 1992 and demise of their mother in the year 2016. The communication states that upon allowing of the application of the petitioners, the petitioner No.3, being the youngest of all the petitioners, would be given family

3/3 pension. However, the communication does not speak anything about the payment of arrears. Since, the petitioners have been found to be entitled to receive family pension as per rules, the availability of benefits of the family pension would be from the date on which the entitlement of the petitioners commenced. This date was of 02.08.2016. Therefore, the arrears which have become due and payable to the petitioner No.3 on behalf of all the petitioners would also have to be paid by the Municipal Council, Pusad .

4.

In the result, we allow this Writ Petition in terms of the communication, dated 23.08.2021- (document A) and also direct the respondent No.4 to make the payment of arrears of family pension from 02.08.2016 till the date from which the family pension has commenced to be paid to the petitioner No.3. Rule accordingly. No costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)