ILIYAS YUSUF NAIKWADI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the communication dated 18. 3. 2000 by which the petitioner's claim for pensionary benefit has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks directions to the respondents to grant him all the pensionary benefits along with interest thereon.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed and worked as Urdu Primary Teacher in the school run by the respondent No. 1 from 20. 9. 1955 to 17. 9. 1965. The petitioner thereafter was promoted as Education extension Officer (Urdu) and on 4. 1. 1978, due to some personal problem, the petitioner resigned from the said post. In all, the petitioner rendered 22 years of continuous service and as it exceeds minimum period of ten years, the petitioner claimed pensionary benefit. The petitioner sought two reliefs in that regard, consequent to the decision delivered by this court on 18. 12. 1998 in the matter of some other persons. The claim, however, was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had not retired from the service but the petitioner had resigned from the service and in terms of the law in force at the relevant time, he was not entitled to claim pensionary benefit. Hence the present petition.

(3.) The fact that the petitioner had resigned on 4. 1. 1998 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that under the relevant provisions of law in force at the relevant time, there was no specific provision entitling the person resigning from the service to claim pensionary benefit. The contention on behalf of the petitioner, however, is that the resignation tantamount to voluntary retirement and, therefore, since the respondents have granted pensionary benefit to the persons who have voluntarily retired and there being specific resolution ensuring the right to pensionary benefit for those who take voluntary retirement, the same principle should apply to the case of voluntary retirement by the employee. So applying the same principle, the petitioner also should be granted pensionary benefit. Attention is drawn to G. R. dated 21. 7. 1983 in that regard. Reliance is also sought to be placed upon the decisions in the matters of Cecil Dennis Solomon and another v/s. Reserve Bank of India and another, reported in (2002 (2) Mh. L. J. 956) ; M/s. J. K. Cotton Spg. and wvg. Mills Company Ltd. Kanpur v/s. State of u. P. and others, reported in (AIR 1990 SC 1808) ; union of India and others sv/s. Ltd. Col. P. S. Bhargava reported in (AIR 1997 SC 565) and; Trimbak s/. Sangramappa Kadge v/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 114) (2002 (4) ALL MR 114).