ANANTRAO DAMODHARRAO AUNDHEKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner, who retired from the services of respondent No. 3 Dr. Babasaheb ambedkar Marathwada University (For short the-University) on superannuation in the capacity of Assistant Registrar, challenges the orders passed by the accountant General dated 3. 6. 1988 and 16. 1. 1989. In fact the order dated 3. 6. 1988 is pension payment order by which pension of the petitioner is fixed at Rs. 1387/- with effect from 1. 8. 1988 onwards. By subsequent communication dated 16. 1. 1989, the Accountant General has refused to revise the fixation of pension of petitioner by adding additional pay drawn by petitioner to the head "pensionable pay".

(2.) PETITIONER while working as Assistant Registrar with respondent University retired on superannuation on 31. 7. 1988. Earlier career graph of petitioner is not relevant for the purpose of present writ petition. While petitioner was working as Assistant Registrar, it appears that post of deputy Registrar (Post Graduate) with University had fallen vacant. Immediately prior to retirement, present petitioner was given additional charge of the said post of Deputy Registrar by two separate orders dated 26. 11. 1987 (Exhibit "d") and 27. 6. 1988 (Exhibit "c" ). It is common ground that Deputy Registrar was higher post than the post held by petitioner i. e. Assistant Registrar. By Exhibit "d" petitioner was directed after the work of Deputy Registrar in addition to his own work. For this he was entitled to be paid 20 per cent additional allowance of the of Deputy Registrar. This arrangement was to continue for the period not exceeding six months or till the appointment of regular deputy Registrar (Post Graduate), whichever event took p. lace earlier. The order dated 27. 6. 1988 is of similar nature but restricted to only two months i. e. 1. 6. 1988 to 31. 7. 1983. Eventually, petitioner has retired on superannuation on 31. 7. 1988 after office hours.

(3.) AS can be seen from the representation of petitioner and replies by the accountant General, the dispute revolves around the issue whether the amount paid to petitioner by way of 20 per cent additional allowance, as referred in orders dated 26. 11. 1987 and 27. 6. 1988 is computable as part and parcel of "pensionable pay. "