KHAIRUNNISSA RASOOL GOLANDAJ Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner who is a widow of Late Rasool Gulam Mohammed Golandaj who was an employee of the Employees State Insurance Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra (for short the 'deceased employee') challenges the judgment and order dated 1.4.2005 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application no.306 of 2003. By the impugned judgment, the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Administrative Tribunal') has directed the respondents to determine the proportion of the pay and allowances to be paid to the deceased employee for a period from 27.10.1965 to 21.12.1967 (of about 2 years and 2 months) in accordance with Rule 72(5) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment during suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules,1981. In pursuance of an ad-interim order passed by this Court the second responded has taken a decision as per directions of the Administrative Tribunal and informed the Petitioner by a communication dated 1.3.2007 that for the suspension period from 27.10.1965 to 21.5.1967 subsistence allowance already paid to the deceased employee was proper. The benefit of the regular pay scale and other permissible benefits during the said suspension period were, therefore, not granted to the deceased employee. The petitioner has amended the writ petition and has further challenged the said decision as contained in the communication dated 1.3.2007 of the second respondent.

(2.) The case has a chequered history and a painful one in regard to the manner in which the deceased employee was treated at the hands of the respondents. We are not the first to observe this but in the first round of litigation the Administrative Tribunal in so many words have expressed pains and anguish at the way the respondents treated the deceased employee. Such is the plight that before he could actually enjoy the fruits of the litigation which lasted for almost thirty years, he succumbed. Now the widow is dragged into litigation by the respondents who is pursuing the enforcement of the rights of her deceased husband so that she gets a legitimate family pension.

(3.) Before adverting to the submissions which are made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the relevant facts are noted by us below.