Case Note & Summary
The petitioner retired from the Maharashtra State Government service on 31.05.1992 and immediately joined as Secretary of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Nagpur, without prior government permission, though the APMC had sought it earlier. The State Government issued show cause notices under Rule 163 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, proposing to withdraw his pension because his reemployment salary exceeded his last pay. The petitioner challenged these notices before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), which stayed the proceedings. During the pendency, the State Government issued an order dated 05.01.1995 granting post-facto permission for the reemployment but imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to refund the entire pension received from 01.06.1992 to 05.01.1995 and to pay the difference between his last state salary and the APMC salary. The MAT subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s original application in 2002, holding that the APMC was a commercial establishment and the reemployment violated Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules, and granted liberty to the State to take disciplinary action and recover pension. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the MAT order. The High Court framed two principal questions: (i) whether the employment in APMC amounted to ‘commercial employment’ as defined in Rule 163(8)(a)(i) of the Pension Rules, and (ii) whether the State Government was competent to impose the conditions in the 1995 order. The petitioner argued that APMC is a statutory body under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, performing regulatory functions, and thus not a commercial establishment. He contended that once post-facto permission was granted, the State could not impose conditions that effectively nullified his pension. The State maintained that the reemployment was commercial and the conditions were valid. The judgment remains incomplete, and the final decision is not reflected in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Commercial Employment - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rule 163(8)(a)(i) - The High Court framed the issue whether employment as Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee constituted 'commercial employment' under the definition. The petitioner contended that APMC is a statutory body incorporated under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, performing regulatory functions and not engaged in commerce. The respondent State argued that such reemployment fell within Rule 163(8) and was commercial. (Paras 5-7)
B) Service Law - Pension - Post-Facto Permission - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, Rule 163(6) - The Court considered the legality of conditions imposed by the State Government while granting post-facto permission for reemployment, which required refund of pension already drawn and the salary difference. The petitioner argued that once permission was granted, the State could not impose conditions that effectively deprived him of pension. The question was whether the State was competent to impose such conditions under Rule 163(6). (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether employment of the petitioner in APMC Nagpur with effect from 01.06.1992 amounts to ‘commercial employment’ as defined in sub-rule 8(a)(i) of Rule 163 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. (ii) Whether the respondent was competent to impose conditions in the order dated 05.01.1995 issued under Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules, thereby depriving the petitioner of pension payable upon superannuation from State Government service.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Rule 163 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- defines commercial employment
- employment in statutory Agricultural Produce Market Committee may not be commercial
- post-facto permission under Rule 163(6) cannot impose retrospective conditions depriving pension
- APMC is statutory body performing regulatory functions under Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act
- 1963
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 216
WRIT PETITION NO. 863/2002
R.K. Deshpande, Mrs. Swapna Joshi
Shri Chinmay S. Dharmadhikari for Shri Uday Dastane (for the petitioner), Shri V.P. Maldhure (for respondent no. 1)
Diwakar s/o Moreshwar Raje
State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Cooperation and Textile Department and Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Nagpur Bench
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s original application and upholding the State Government’s authority to recover pension on grounds of commercial reemployment without prior permission.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the Tribunal’s order and the conditions imposed in the State’s post-facto permission order, and the restoration of full pension.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal held that the petitioner’s reemployment in APMC was commercial employment in violation of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, and allowed the State to recover pension from 01.06.1992 till the date of judgment.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Original Application No. 419/1993, judgment dated 03.01.2002, dismissing the application and granting liberty to the State to take disciplinary action and recover pension.
Issues
Whether the employment of the petitioner in APMC Nagpur with effect from 01.06.1992 amounts to ‘commercial employment’ as defined in sub-rule 8(a)(i) of Rule 163 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Whether the respondent was competent to impose conditions for grant of permission in the order dated 05.01.1995 issued under Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules, so as to deprive the pension payable to the petitioner upon his superannuation from the services of the State Government.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: APMC is a statutory body under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, performing regulatory functions and not engaged in commerce; hence, employment in APMC is not ‘commercial employment’. Once the State Government granted post-facto permission under Rule 163(6), it could not impose conditions that effectively nullify pension.
Respondent: The employment in APMC as Secretary is a commercial employment as defined under Rule 163(8) of the Pension Rules; the conditions for grant of permission were valid and the Tribunal was correct in allowing recovery of pension.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 03.01.2002 dismissed the Original Application No. 419/1993 filed by the petitioner recording the finding that the petitioner secured employment in “commercial establishment” without prior permission of the State Government which was covered by subrule (8) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules and by reemployment, the petitioner was earning profit which would amount to his commercial employment...
We find that basically two questions are involved in the matter : (i) whether the “employment” of the petitioner in APMC Nagpur with effect from 01.06.1992 amounts to the ‘commercial employment’ as defined in subrule 8(a) (i) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, and (ii) whether the respondent was competent to impose the conditions for grant of permission in the order dated 05.01.1995 issued under Rule 163(6) of the Pension Rules, to deprive the pension payable to the petitioner upon his superannuation from the services of the State Government.
Shri Dharmadhikari, for the petitioner has taken us through the provisions of Sections 11, 12(2), 13(2), 31, 36(1) and 37 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 and the definition of ‘commercial employment’ in subrule (8) of Rule 163 of the Pension Rules, to urge that the APMC is a statutory body incorporated under Section 12 performing the functions of regulating the marketing activities...
Procedural History
The petitioner retired from State Government service on 31.05.1992 and immediately joined APMC without prior permission. Show cause notices were issued in 1993 under the Pension Rules. The petitioner challenged the notices in Original Application No. 419/1993 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which stayed the show cause proceedings. During pendency, the State Government passed an order dated 05.01.1995 granting post-facto permission with conditions for refund of pension and salary difference. The Tribunal, on 03.01.2002, dismissed the original application, held that reemployment was commercial employment in violation of Rule 163, and permitted recovery of pension from 01.06.1992. The present writ petition was filed against the Tribunal’s order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 163(1), Rule 163(3)(c)(f), Rule 163(6), Rule 163(8)(a)(i)
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 11, Section 12(2), Section 13(2), Section 31, Section 36(1), Section 37
