Bombay High Court Adjudicates Pension Entitlement of Medical Officer Under Two Employers' Pension Rules. Petitioner Sought to Count Service Periods with Both Municipal Corporation and State Government for Pension Under Bombay Municipal Corporation Pension Rules, 1953 and Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking pension benefits and quashing of rejection orders

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to withdraw, rescind and/or cancel paragraph no.6 of the Commissioner’s report dated 10 August 2005 and letter dated 30 September 2004, and to grant pension for the service periods 2 September 1958 to 31 January 1961 and 1 February 1961 to 1 June 1973

The petitioner’s claim for pension for the said periods was rejected by the Corporation and the State Government, and he alleged that the rejection was based on incorrect statements and misrepresentation before the court in contempt proceedings

Earlier writ petition (No.777/1994) directed the respondents to consider petitioner’s case under rule 15(2) of Corporation Pension Rules and under rule 23 of State Pension Rules. The respondents rejected the claim after consideration. Contempt petition (No.74/2004) was disposed of on statements that the case had been considered. The petitioner discovered that the Commissioner’s report actually declined the proposal and the earlier statement was incorrect.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to addition of service period from 2 September 1958 to 31 January 1961 as qualifying service under Corporation Pension Rules Whether the State Government is liable to grant pension under Rule 23 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules for service from 1 February 1961 to 1 June 1973 Whether the rejection by the Corporation and State Government was valid and free from procedural impropriety

Petitioner contended that under Rule 15A(b) of Corporation Pension Rules, he is entitled to treat his pensionable service as continuous from 1953 to 1985 because he resigned in 1961 to join State Government service Petitioner alternatively argued that under Rule 15(2) and Rule 5(F)(i) of Corporation Pension Rules, the period from 2 September 1958 to 31 January 1961 should be added to his qualifying service with the Corporation Petitioner claimed that similarly situated employees like Mr. Faruqui, Mr. Behare, Mr. Rubin, and Mrs. Tamhane were granted similar pension benefits Petitioner asserted that the State of Maharashtra was liable to grant pension under Rule 23 of the State Pension Rules for the period spent with the State Government Petitioner alleged that the advocate for the Corporation made an incorrect statement in the contempt proceedings that his case had been considered, while in fact the Commissioner’s adverse report was issued later, thereby misleading the court

Ratio not explicitly mentioned

According to the petitioner, in view of Rule 15A(b) of Bombay Municipal Corporation Pension Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Corporation Pension Rules), he is entitled to be treated to have completed pensionable service from 1953 to 1985 with Corporation as he had resigned in 1961 to join service of State of Maharashtra from 1 st February, 1961 to 1 st June, 1973. It is also the case of petitioner by way of alternate contention that in view of Rule 15(2) and Rule 5(F)(i) of Corporation Pension Rules, the period of service with Corporation from 2 nd September, 1958 to 31 st January, 1961 should be added to his period of service with the Corporation from 2 nd June, 1973 to 30 th November, 1985. The State of Maharashtra by their letter bearing No.MES/2704/CR-13/MS-1 dated 30 th September, 2004 (Exh. N) informed the petitioner’s advocate that the petitioner cannot be granted pension under Rule 23 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as State Pension Rules). By the said letter the petitioner was informed that the case of the petitioner is not covered under exceptional services as per the provisions of the said rules. According to the petitioner, on account of the aforesaid wrong statement, the petitioner’s case could not be considered in the proper perspective and that is how the petitioner is aggrieved by the ultimate rejection of his case by the Corporation.

Petitioner initially worked with Corporation from 2.9.1958 to 31.1.1961, then joined State Government from 1.2.1961 to 1.6.1973, and then re-joined Corporation from 2.6.1973, superannuating on 30.11.1985. He made representations for pension for the two earlier periods, which were rejected. He filed Writ Petition No.106/1993, dismissed; Appeal No.277/1993 resulted in directions to consider his claim. State rejected by letter dated 10.12.1993. Writ Petition No.777/1994 was filed, and by order dated 26.3.2004, Corporation was directed to consider under Rule 15(2) and State under Rule 23. Corporation’s Standing Committee initially disapproved, then approved as special case subject to Corporation sanction. Corporation referred back; Commissioner’s report dated 10.8.2005 declined benefit. State rejected under Rule 23 by letter 30.9.2004. Contempt Petition No.74/2004 was disposed of on 15.7.2005 on statements that the case had been considered. Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition No.65/2006 challenging the rejections.

• Bombay Municipal Corporation Pension Rules, 1953: Rule 15A(b), Rule 15(2), Rule 5(F)(i)
• Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 23
• Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 157(1)(h)