RAFIUDDIN SHAHABUDDIN INAMDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Assistant Teacher has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25th January,2011 passed by Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune/Respondent No.2. The petitioner has further sought direction to respondent No.1 to condone break in service of the petitioner and to process the pension and gratuity papers in respect of the case of the petitioner and solicit release of the same. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner employee expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record with the leave of this Court. The writ petition was therefore amended and it is prayed that the family of the original petitioner be held eligible for family pension and the same should be disbursed in their favour.

(2.) The petitioner Raifuddin Inamdar before us was initially appointed in Janata Vidyalaya, Ruichhattishi, District Ahmednagar and he served in the said school with effect from 16th November, 1978 to 3rd August, 1981. He resigned from the said service and he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Anglo Urdu Boys High School, New Modikhana, Pune, where he served from 10th August, 1981 to 11th June, 1986. During his service in the said school there were three breaks in service on account of termination and break of one day as a technical break. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher In Moledina High School Pune with effect from 12th June, 1986. He tendered his resignation on 20th December, 1999 on account of his ill health by surrendering three months pay in lieu of the period of notice. He was again appointed in Moledina High School from 1st September, 2001 after break of one year, nine months and four days. The service of the petitioner in the said school was approved by the Education Officer (Secondary) Pune vide order dated 1st April, 2002. The petitioner served in the said school till he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 30th June, 2008.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V.K. More invited our attention to the Government Resolution of 10th May, 1989 and he also placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 1015/1999 (Vasant Hiraji Kadu Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors) dated 15th October, 2008. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Government Circular dated 10th May, 1989 sets out the modalities for condoning the break in service subject to certain terms and conditions and according to the learned Counsel this Circular makes a reference to the Government Resolution of 4th November, 1968 and 30th August, 1972 which stipulated certain conditions subject to which the break in service of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the Non-Government Secondary School can be condoned. He invited our attention to clause No.3 of the said Circular by which it is stipulated that those cases which are not covered by clause (2) of the Government Circular, the said proposal should be forwarded to the State Government. According to the Advocate Shri More, the petitioner is entitled for condonation of break in service in the light of the policy of the State Government and the petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of family pension since the break in service of the employee has not been condoned and the State Government till date has not taken any decision.