Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mohd. Nazamullah Mohd. Suleman, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking pensionary benefits. He was employed at Urdu High School, Buldana prior to 31st December 1965. The court noted that the present case is covered by a reported judgment of this Court in a group of petitions, Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & ors. [2005 (2) ALL MR 206]. Specifically, the petitioner's case falls under Item Nos. (1) and (2) of para 21 of that judgment. In view of this, the court made the rule absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (b) and as per paras 5 and 6 of the judgment. The court did not elaborate on the facts or arguments in detail, relying entirely on the precedent. The decision was in favor of the petitioner, granting the relief sought.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pensionary Benefits - Pre-1965 Employees - The petitioner was employed in Urdu High School, Buldana prior to 31st December 1965. The court held that his case is covered by Items (1) and (2) of para 21 of the reported judgment in Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & ors. [2005 (2) ALL MR 206]. Rule made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (b) and as per paras 5 and 6 of the judgment. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was in employment prior to 31st December 1965, is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the judgment in Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Final Decision
Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (b), and as per paras 5 and 6 of the judgment.
Law Points
- Pensionary benefits
- Pre-1965 employees
- Coverage by precedent
- Rule made absolute
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 415
Writ Petition No.726 of 1999
Mr. G.G. Mishra for petitioner, Mr. D.P. Thakre, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.1
Mohd. Nazamullah Mohd. Suleman
The State of Maharashtra, The President (Anjuman Mofidul Islam Socy.), The Head Master, Anjuman High School
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking pensionary benefits
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought pensionary benefits as per Prayer Clause (b) of the writ petition
Filing Reason
Petitioner was in employment prior to 31st December 1965 and his case was covered by a reported judgment
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as per the precedent in Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & ors.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that his case is covered by the reported judgment. Respondent no.1 was represented by Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner's case is covered by Items (1) and (2) of para 21 of the reported judgment in Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar v. State of Maharashtra & ors., and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.
Judgment Excerpts
Present case is covered by the reported judgment of this Court in a group of petitions - Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar Vs. State of Mah. & ors.[2005 (2) ALL MR 206].
Facts of the case disclose that petitioner was in the employment of Urdu High School, Buldana, prior to 31st December, 1965, and his case is covered by Item Nos. (1) and (2) of para 21 of the aforesaid reported judgment.
In view of this, Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clause (b), and as per paras 5 and 6 hereinafter.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.726 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The court heard the matter on 5th January 2010 and disposed it by making the rule absolute.
