LAWS(BOM)-2001-9-54

NARHAR RAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 21, 2001
NARHAR RAO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner challenges parts of Government resolutions dated August 18, 1987, October 11, 1988 and October 3, 1988. By Government resolution dated August 18, 1987, in the Department of Finance, and more particularly by Clause 3. 1 of the same, the term "pensionable pay is restricted to pay" as defined in Rule 9 (36) (i) of the Maharashtra civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (henceforth referred to as 'pension Rules' for the sake of brevity), thereby excluding personal pay, special pay and any other emoluments specially classified as "pay", which were till then included in the said term "pay". By resolution dated October 11, 1988, government of Maharashtra in the Finance department fixed September 1, 1988 to be the date for giving effect to the recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission regarding enhancing the ceiling for accrual and encashment of unexhausted earned leave at the time of retirement on superannuation to 240 days from the then existing 180 days. By resolution dated October 3, 1988 issued by Finance Department of the State; similarly September 1, 1988 is the date fixed for giving effect to revised rates of travelling allowance/detention allowance, transfer grants, etc.

(2.) PETITIONER was a member of State judicial Service, who had resumed on september 12, 1956 and retired on superannuation on January 31, 1988. While he was serving as Chief Judicial Magistrate at latur in the year 1984, the High Court, through its Registrar, was pleased to call for willingness for ex-cadre posts of Judge, Labour Court; member, School Tribunal, etc. While calling such willingness, the details regarding service conditions of those ex-cadre posts including special pay, deputation allowance and such basic information was furnished. Service condition for Judge, Labour Court, was

(3.) RULE was issued by order dated september 20, 1989 and no interim relief was granted. Reply dated September 19, 2001 is filed on behalf of first two respondents, by deputy Secretary in the Industry, Energy and labour Department of the State.