GURANNA S EKKELI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. The petitioners in both these petitions are employess of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners are aggrieved for stoppage of paymet of pension to them. Therefore both these petitions can be conveniently disposed by a common order.

(2.) THE admitted position is that both the petitioners were in the service of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, that both of them, while in service, exercised their option and opted for the pension scheme, that both of them have retired and after their retiremant from service, both of them were paid pension for some time. The petitioner in writ petitio No. 1461 of 1999 was paid pension till September 1998 and the petitioner in writ petition No. 1462 of 1999 received pension till June 1998. Their pension for the subsequent months was not paid. Therefore, they made representations. As despite making repeated respresentations, pension was not paid, they have approached this Court for direction ot the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to make payment of the pension.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 adn 2 as also the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. There does not appear to be any dispute between the parties that the petitioners are entitled for payment of pension. The only defence that is raised by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that the Khadi and village Industries Board has by its letter dated 27th November 1997 refused to reimburse the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in so far as the payment of pensionary benefits to the employees o f the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned. In our opinion, as it is an admitted position before us that the petitioner are employees of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. liability to make payment of pension is of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 get reimbursement from other source or not cannot be a ground for denying payment of pension to the petitioners. It is further to be seen here that the employees of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 working in other divisions than the training division in which the petitioners were working, are regularly getting the pension. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed that even some of the employees who have retired from training division are also being paid pension. In our opinion therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the respondent Nos, 1 and 2 to withhold payment of pension to the petitioners.