High Court · 2025

Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.6138 OF 2016Meenakshi w/o Ajay Pande… PETITIONERVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & ors.… RESPONDENTS.......Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitionerMr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar, A.G.P. for State....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDNEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.Date of reserving order : 23rd June, 2025Date of pronouncing order : 15th July, 2025O R D E R :This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India, takes exception to the judgment and order dated6/8/2015, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal(MAT), Bench at Aurangabad, in Transfer application (TA),No.2/2015 with Misc. Application (MA) No.355/2015. Videimpugned judgment and order, the original Writ Petition Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 2 ::(converted into T.A.) filed by the petitioner, for her absorption inservice and consequential grant of pension and benefitsincidental thereto has been dismissed.2.The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition areas follows :-The petitioner did graduation in Arts Stream (B.A.).She earned postgraduation in the very stream with the specialsubject Sociology. It was also the special subject for degree inB.A. She then registered herself with the Employment Bureauof University and the Government Employees Scheme inJanuary 1982. The petitioner claimed to have worked asMedical Social Worker on vacant sanctioned post by IndianCouncil of Medical Research (ICMR). Her appointment wasfor a fixed period. Many a time, she was given appointmentson temporary basis. She, therefore, made severalrepresentations for her absorption on a vacant post. TheICMR issued a letter dated 15/8/1989. The Dean ofGovernment Medical College, Aurangabad (respondent No.2),directed to absorb the petitioner on suitable post. Since thepetitioner was not absorbed, she filed Writ Petition (Writ Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 3 ::Petition No.2747/1990) before this Court. This Court, videorder dated 4/4/1991, granted interim relief directing thepetitioner to be reinstated. The petitioner thus came to bereinstated on the post of Medical Social Worker withrespondent No.2. The Petition later on came to be transferredto MAT. It was numbered as T.A. No.2407/1991. Since theAdvocate representing the petitioner in the Writ Petitionpassed away, and the petitioner was unaware thereof, thePetition was dismissed in default way back in 2002. Thepetitioner continued to serve until she attained the age ofsuperannuation in the month of June 2012. She then realisedher Application to have been dismissed in default. She,therefore, approached the MAT and moved an application forrestoration. Her restoration application was allowed. It was,however, dismissed on merits after hearing the parties thereto.The said order is under challenge before us, in this WritPetition.3.We have heard the learned Advocate for thepetitioner and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents. It wassubmitted that, the petitioner rendered continuous service for Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 4 ::more than 12 years. She thus became entitled for grant ofpensionery benefits. The petitioner was granted time boundpromotional pay-scale. She has also been granted revision inher pay in terms of recommendations of respective PayCommissions. Even on her superannuation, the Head of theDepartment called upon her to submit necessary papers forprocessing her pension case. All the documents in that regardwere referred to. The learned Advocate for the petitioner alsorelied on certain authorities to submit the petitioner to haveserved continuously for a long period. She was qualified. Herrecruitment was by following due procedure. It was on asanctioned, vacant and permanent post. He would furthersubmit that, the MAT erred in relying on the Apex Courtjudgment in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & ors. Vs.Umadevi (3) & ors. [ 2006) 4 SCC 1. According to him, sincethe dismissal of the petitioner’s original Writ Petition (T.A.) indefault, the interim order came to be vacated automatically.She, therefore, continued to serve for a period entitling her topension and related benefits. The petitioner, therefore, couldnot be said to have been in service on the basis of Court’sinterim order. The learned Advocate ultimately urged for at Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 5 ::least grant of half of the pension. He relied on the followingauthorities :-(1)State of Karnataka & ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & ors.(2010) 9 SCC 247(2)State of Jharkhand & ors. Vs. Kamal Prasad & ors.(2014) 7 SCC 223(3)Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar & ors. (2015) 8 SCC 265(4)Mrs. Kunda w/o Ramchandra Lakhkar (Nee Kunda d/oShriram Varudkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.(Writ Petition No.8327/2013)(5)Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Vs. Ganpat KisanKarle [ 2016 DGLS (Bom) 191(6)Waliuddin s/o Pashasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra &ors. [Writ Petition No.1542/2008]4.The learned A.G.P. supports the order impugnedherein.5.We have considered the submissions advanced.Perused the order impugned herein and the documents reliedon. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially appointed as aMedical Social Worker on 16/3/1982. Her appointment was forduration of only 29 days. Thereafter, she was continued inservice with regular breaks. She was terminated from service Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 6 ::in the year 1987. After about a period of three and half yearswas over, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition(No.2747/1990). This Court, vide interim order, dated4/4/1991, directed the concerned respondents to reinstate thepetitioner in service. The said petition thereafter wastransferred to the MAT. It was converted into a T.A.(No.2407/1991). The petitioner attained the age ofsuperannuation in June 2012. Even steps for preparing herpension case were also taken. During her continuance inservice, she was admittedly granted time bound promotionalscale. She was extended with the pay-scale as wasrecommended by the respective Pay Commissions.6.Admittedly, the petitioner’s application (Original WritPetition) before the MAT was dismissed in default, meaningthereby the interim order of her reinstatement in service stoodvacated. It is only after long, that too post her attainingsuperannuation she realised the same. It is true that, the MATrestored her application and decided the same on merits. TheMAT has observed in its order that the petitioner did not makeout a case to have been appointed by following due procedure. Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 7 ::She also failed to make out a case to have requisitequalification. Nor was it made out that her appointment was onvacant and permanent post. It is true that, the petitioner didB.A. and M.A. with special subject, 'Sociology’. For the postheld by her, the requisite qualification was graduate in SocialScience. We need not advert to the aspect of the petitioner’seducational qualification for the reason that, on other grounds,no interference with the order impugned herein is warranted.Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on a post under aspecial scheme. On the said scheme to have come to an end,her appointment necessarily came to an end. She continuedin service only on the strength of the interim order passed bythis Court. True, on dismissal of the petition, the interim orderstood vacated. The petitioner, however, cannot be benefitedthereby to contend that she continued to serve for little over 12years without orders of a Court. Such submission wasadvanced with a view to come out of the observations of theApex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). The MAT hasreproduced the observations of the Apex Court in the saidjudgment. We, therefore, need not reproduce the sameherein. The MAT has also adverted to Rule 33 of the Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 8 ::Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which reads :“33.A Government servant who holds apermanent post substantively or holds a lien or asuspended lien or a certificate of permanency onthe date of his retirement, the entire temporary orofficiating service rendered under Governmentfollowed without interruption by confirmation inthe same or another post, shall count in full asservice qualifying for pension, except the servicerendered against one of the posts mentioned inRule 57.”7.Although the petitioner relied on the above variousauthorities, it needs no mention that, those have no bearing onthe fate of this Writ Petition in view of the Apex Court judgmentin Umadevi’s case (supra), being a Constitutional Benchjudgment and it has been specifically observed that when aperson enters a temporary employment or gets engagementas contractual or casual work and is not based on properselection as recognised by the relevant rules or procedure, heis aware of the consequences of the appointment beingtemporary, casual or contractual in nature. 8.It has further been observed in Umadevi’s casethat, decision which run counter to the principle settled inUmadevi’s case or in which direction running counter to what Writ Petition No.6138/2016:: 9 ::has been laid down therein, will stand denuded as their statusas precedent. For this very reason, the authorities relied on bythe petitioner are of no help at all.9.It needs no mention that, factual observation injudgment and order are presumed to be correct unlessotherwise shown. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that, theMAT has observed the petitioner to have not claimed that shewas duly qualified for the post as per the recruitment rules andwas appointed in a sanctioned vacant post. We need notdilate on the issue involved in this Writ Petition, since the orderimpugned herein is well reasoned and we are in completeagreement therewith.10.For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit inthe Writ Petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-