JEEVAN KASHINATH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions can be disposed of together as the issues raised therein are identical.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1541 of 2008 additional relief regarding pension claim is also prayed. However, during the arguments, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner who is present in Court, stated that both these petitions will be pressed only in respect of claim of gratuity in respect of each of the petitioner.

(3.) Briefly stated, it is not in dispute that the petitioners joined service as Judicial Officers in the State of Maharashtra as Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioner in the first petition was in continuous service for more than 17 years. The petitioner in the second petition was in continuous service for around 12 years. Both the petitioners tendered resignations which were accepted by the High Court. Thus, they stood relieved from service thereafter. Each of the petitioner has been making representation for grant of gratuity amount due and payable to them as they had completed more than five years of continuous service. The appropriate authority, however, informed the petitioners that their claim for gratuity amount cannot be taken forward as they did not fulfill the qualifying service specified in Rule 46 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules.