PARSHURAM VITHOBA BHANDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension on his retirement on superannuation.

(2.) THE facts which are not disputed are in a very narrow compass, that the petitioner was recruited as a daily wager in 1964. In 1980 a post of labour supervisor on the establishment of respondent No. 2 was sanctioned. On 13-9-1983 the petitioner was appointed permanently on that post. It is not in dispute, as will be seen from the averments made in para 2 of the affidavit in reply, that the petitioner was made permanent in the cadre of supervisor on 13-9-1980. Thus the petitioner was undisputedly working as a labour supervisor from 13-9-1980 though he was working as a daily wager since 1964.

(3.) THE petitioner was denied the pensionary benefits. Relying on the provisions of Rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982, according to which the petitioner has not completed 10 years of qualifying service as labour supervisor and therefore according to the Government as required by Rule 57 he is not entitled to any terminal benefits.