Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the State of Maharashtra and others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No.776 of 2000. The respondent, Yuvraj s/o Dashrath Patil, joined the SRPF Group-8 as a Constable on 24.11.1971. He was later promoted to driver and subsequently to Head Constable. He was placed under suspension from 1.7.1991 to 31.7.1992 and later reinstated. He retired on 31.12.1998 after completing 27 years of service. The respondent claimed pensionary benefits, but the petitioners denied the same on the ground that he had not completed the requisite 20 years of qualifying service, as the period of suspension and certain leave periods were not counted. The respondent filed Original Application No.776 of 2000 before the MAT, which allowed the application and directed the petitioners to grant pension to the respondent. The petitioners challenged this order in the present writ petition. The court considered the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, particularly Rules 49(1) and 50, which define qualifying service and the conditions for pension. The court held that the respondent had completed 20 years of qualifying service, including the period of suspension and leave, and was entitled to pension. The court found no error in the MAT's order and dismissed the petition, upholding the grant of pensionary benefits to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Qualifying Service - Rule 49(1) and Rule 50 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - The respondent, a former SRPF constable, completed 20 years of qualifying service including periods of suspension and leave - The court held that pension is a right and the respondent is entitled to pensionary benefits as per rules - The MAT order granting pension was upheld (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Suspension Period - Counting towards Qualifying Service - Rule 50 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - The period of suspension, if followed by reinstatement, counts as qualifying service - The court held that the respondent's suspension period was not treated as a break in service and thus counts towards pension (Paras 5-8). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court's power of judicial review over orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal - The court found no error in the MAT's order and dismissed the petition (Paras 1, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent is entitled to pension after completing 20 years of qualifying service, and whether the period of suspension and leave can be counted towards qualifying service for pension.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the Vice Chairman, Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Original Application No.776 of 2000, is upheld. The respondent is entitled to pensionary benefits.
Law Points
- Pension is a right
- not a bounty
- qualifying service for pension includes periods of suspension and leave
- Rule 49(1) and Rule 50 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
- jurisdiction of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
