TRIMBAK SANGRAMAPPA KADGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was born on 20th July, 1940. He completed his B. Sc. degree course in 1962. He obtained his M. Sc. degree in 1964 and came to be appointed as Lecturer in Botany at Dayanand Science College, Latur on 20th June, 1964. He came to be appointed as Vice Principal of Shri Mahatma Basweshwar College, Latur on 20th June, 1970 and became the Principal of the said college with effect from 7th June, 1971. The petitioner could have reached the age of superannuation in July, 2000. However, he made an application for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted with effect from 1st July, 1989 though he had opted for such retirement from 1st April, 1989. In the meanwhile, the Government of Maharashtra issued a Resolution dated 21st July, 1983 directing that the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits admissible to the Maharashtra State Government Servants under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, including the family pension, 1984 contained therein should be made applicable to the full time approved teaching and non-teaching staff in recognised aided non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Education Colleges and the non-agricultural universities in the State who retired on or after 1st October, 1982. Consequent to a decision of this Court that cut off date of 1st of October, 1982 was changed to 1st January, 1973 and accordingly the Resolution dated 21st July, 1983 was made applicable to all those employees who retired on or after 1st January, 1973 from recognised aided non-Government Arts, Science, Commerce and Education Colleges and the non-agricultural universities in the State. Obviously, when the petitioners request for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 1st July, 1989 he had not reached the age of superannuation and, therefore, superannuation pension was not applicable to him in view of Rule 63 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Pension Rules, for short ). Being aware of this position he had submitted an application dated 1st April, 1989 praying for voluntary retirement and the benefits thereof in terms of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules. Though he was allowed to retire voluntarily he was not given the benefit of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules as communicated to the respondent No. 4 college vide letter dated 20th May, 1991 by the Government of Maharashtra. The respondent No. 4, therefore, submitted a representation to the Honourable Chief Minister on 22nd/25th June, 1991. By a communication dated 30th/31st July, 1991 the respondent No. 3 intimated to respondent No. 4 that the request made by him cannot be considered so as to extend the benefit of voluntary retirement to the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court and challenged the legality of the communication dated 20th May, 1991 as well as 31st July, 1991.

(2.) THE Administrative Officer, High Education Grants, Aurangabad has filed affidavit in reply and opposed the petition. It has been reiterated that for being eligible for the pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules one has to put in a minimum of ten years service and has to reach the age of superannuation, as prescribed. The petitioner was to retire on reaching the age of 60 years and he retired at the age of 49 years and though he had put in more than 10 years of service he was not entitled for the pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules in terms of the Government Resolution dated 21st July, 1983. It is further submitted that the benefit of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules was not applicable to the employees of recognised aided non-Government colleges and universities till the Government issued subsequent Resolution dated 7th March, 1990 by which time the petitioner had already retired voluntarily. As the Government extended the benefit of Rule 66 of the Pension Rules vide Resolution dated 7th March, 1990, i. e. after the voluntary retirement of the petitioner, the benefit of the said decision cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. The learned A. G. P. , in this regard, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Punjab and others v. Boota Singh and another) 2000 (3) S. C. C. 733.

(3.) THE petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (Ramkishor Kundanlal Pashine v. The State of Maharashtra and others) Writ Petition No. 668 of 1987, as well as (Shalla D. Varerkar v. State of Maharashtra and another) 1999 (II) C. L. R. 282. Shri Choudhari, the learned A. G. P. conceded that these decisions of two different Division Benches of this Court are applicable to the petitioners case; but they are per incuriam inasmuch as the Government Resolution dated 20th June, 1984 was not considered and form the said circular it is clear that the benefit of voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service under Rule 66 of the Pension Rules was not applicable to the employees of the aided non-Government colleges and non-agricultural universities till the Government Resolution dated 7th March, 1990 was issued. We are not impressed by these arguments and we do not find any substance in the contentions that the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Ramkishor Kundanlal Pashine (supra) and Shalla D. Varerkar (supra) are per incuriam.