Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 2 February 2022 of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No.50 of 2019. The Tribunal had directed that the initial temporary service of the respondent, Vitthal Tulshiram Jadhav, be computed only for the purpose of pension. The respondent was a Project Affected Person (PAP) and was issued a certificate to that effect on 30 November 1999. On the strength of this certificate, he was engaged as an X-ray Technician on a temporary basis for 60 days on 13 March 2000, placed on a pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000 plus allowances. His services were continued beyond the 60-day period. An advertisement for regular appointment was issued on 19 May 2007, and the respondent applied but was not selected. He filed Original Application No.320 of 2007 before the Aurangabad Bench of the Tribunal, which was dismissed as he was less meritorious. Consequently, his services were terminated on 28 December 2007. He challenged the termination and the Tribunal's order before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.79 of 2008. During the hearing, the State Government communicated that one post of X-ray Technician was vacant and willing to accommodate the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of on 11 August 2009, and the respondent was granted regular appointment on 25 May 2009 at Sassoon General Hospital, Pune. The respondent later filed Contempt Petition No.23 of 2010 alleging non-compliance, as the appointment was temporary. The High Court directed the State to consider the respondent's representation for regularization, and he was regularized on 1 July 2011. The respondent then filed Original Application No.50 of 2019 seeking counting of his temporary service from 13 March 2000 to 24 May 2009 for pensionary benefits. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing that the temporary service be computed only for pension. The State challenged this order. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the temporary service of a PAP, who was engaged on a temporary basis and later regularized, is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Court noted that the respondent was a PAP and his initial engagement was in accordance with the government's policy for rehabilitation of PAPs. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Counting of Temporary Service - Project Affected Person - The issue was whether the initial temporary service of a PAP, who was later regularized, should be computed for pension. The Tribunal directed that the temporary service be counted only for pension. The High Court upheld the direction, holding that the temporary service of a PAP, who was engaged on a temporary basis and later regularized, is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. (Paras 2-11) B) Service Law - Regularization - Project Affected Person - The respondent, a PAP, was initially engaged temporarily and later regularized after a court order. The State challenged the counting of temporary service for pension. The Court held that the temporary service of a PAP, who was engaged on a temporary basis and later regularized, is liable to be counted for pensionary benefits. (Paras 3-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the initial temporary service of a project affected person, who was subsequently regularized, should be counted for the purpose of pension.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order dated 2 February 2022 directing that the respondent's initial temporary service be computed for the purpose of pension.
Law Points
- Pensionary benefits
- temporary service
- project affected person
- regularization
- counting of past service
