JEEVAN KASHINATH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These group of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the refusal of the State of Maharashtra in granting to its employees i.e. the petitioner who have resigned after over 10 years of service, the benefit of gratuity as well as the benefit of earned leave standing to their credit in excess of half of such leave beyond the period of 150 days. This refusal of the State Government to grant gratuity is on the basis of Rule 46(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1982 (Pension Rules 1982) which entails forfeiture of past services on resignation. So far as the benefit of accumulated leave is concerned, the State Government has relied upon Rule 67(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1981 (Leave Rules 1981) which allows encashment of accumulated leave to the extent of half of such leave subject to a cap of 150 days. Writ Petition Nos.2668 of 2002 and 1541 of 2008 have been filed directly in this Court by petitioner's who had resigned from the Judicial Services while W. P. No.2346 of 2011 has been filed by petitioner from the order dated 6 May 2011 of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal refusing to grant gratuity on the petitioner's resignation from the Sales Tax Department of State Government.

(2.) All the three petitions challenge the Constitutional validity of Rule 46(1) of Pension Rules 1982 and Rule 67(3) of Leave Rules 1981.

(3.) As the issue arising in all these petitions are common, we shall refer to the facts stated in Writ Petition No.2668 of 2002 for the purpose of this order. The bare facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are as under: