High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odt[Corrected Copy : Corrections have been carried out in view of thespeaking to the minutes of the order dated 12.03.2025]IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6567 OF 2020ANIL DNYANOBA MOHEKAR AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash S. DeshmukhAGP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. B. PulkundwarAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. P. P. More… CORAM : S. G. MEHARE & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 28-02-2025PER COURT:-1.Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.2.The petitioners who retired from the Maharashtra PollutionControl Board (MPCB)/ respondent No.2 have already received thebenefit of pension scheme existing at that time. However, theissue of applying Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982(for short, “Pension Rules”) was under consideration.3.The petitioners have a case that various meetings were heldfor applying Pension Rules . The Board had difficulty to implementthe pension scheme as there was no Government approval. TheGovernment, by communication dated 28.11.2024 granted
Legal Reasoning
2 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odtapproval to the proposal of the Board to apply the PensionSchemes to its employees. The document placed on record revealsthat Finance Department long back expressed its no objection asthe Government would not be burdened. 4.The respondents have sufficient fund to pay the pension asper the Pension Rules. However, after the approval was grantedby the State Government, the contesting respondent/Board is notagreeable for the applying the Pension Rules to the employeeswho have already retired and received the benefits as per the thenpension scheme. The contesting respondent has an apprehensionthat the amount which the petitioners have received was thefullest payment towards the pension and probably applyingPension Rules may be a double pensionary benefit.5.The learned counsel for respondents has placed on recordthe order of the Rajasthan Government, dated 20.04.2023, whichwas on identical facts. However, in that case, the persons who hadalready received the pension, were to return Contributory PensionFund/Contributory Provident Fund (EPF/CPF) amount interest @12% per annum.6.The learned counsel for the respondent/Board hasvehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioners that Item No.6 in the meeting dated 12.02.2024, theGovernment Resolution of Finance Department dated 02.02.2024 3 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odtwas referred to and Pension Rules were applied to all employees.The said Rules were not applied to the employees who were retiredduring the period from 12.02.2024 to 28.11.2024 had receivedbenefit of CPF scheme. In the nut-shell, the contesting respondenthas accepted to apply MCS (Pension) Rules. The only controversyraised is about its applicability to employees who have alreadybeen retired and received the benefit of the pension as then was inforce.7.We have perused the record with able assistance of therespective counsel.8.Government Resolution dated 08.11.2005 is significant todecide the dispute. By this Resolution, the Government hasdirected that new DCPS has been made applicable to the StateGovernment employees appointed on 01.11.2005 or thereafter,instead of existing old pension scheme. Pursuant thereto, theGovernment has taken decision that the old pension scheme is notapplicable to the employees presently working in aidedInstitutions, Boards, Corporation, etc. Here-after, present existingpension scheme i.e. old pension scheme would not be applied tosuch institutions. The proposals of employees of aided Institutions/ Boards / Corporations, etc. should not be submitted for approvalof the Government for application of existing pension scheme i.e.[MCS (Pension) Rules 1982]. However, it has also been clarified 4 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odtthat no such proposal be placed before this Government forapplying the old scheme. Item No.6 of the meeting dated21.02.2024 reveals that the Board/contesting respondent wasconsistently pursuing for applying the old scheme to theemployees. Finally, the Finance Department did raise no objectionto apply old Pension, because financial burden for arrangement ofpension amount would not be on Government. Again theGovernment, by communication dated 18.12.2024 informed thecontesting respondent/Board to apply the pension scheme withoutfinancial burden on the Government.9.After going through the record placed before the Court, theBoard had already made the financial arrangement to pay thepension to its employee.10.A question arises, can such relief be denied to theemployees, who were awaiting for same relief since before theirretirement for want of Government approval and they havereceived the benefits of the Scheme the then applied ?11.The record reveals that since last many years the subjectwas taken up to the Government and the Government did not raiseany objection. It was only the board to take decision and apply thePension Rules. There should not be discrimination in the peculiarcircumstances of the case, between the employees who are inservice and who have already been retired. In such a situation, at 5 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odtthe most an apprehension of the Board of double payment ofpension to the petitioners have received towards EPF/CPF, may beresolved by directing to refund or deposit the amount with theBoard to adjust the amount. If this would have been done, we areof the view, since the Government has no objection and gaveconscious approval for applying the old Pension Scheme from thefunds of the Board, the petitioners though retired would not bedenied the application of the old pension scheme. However,directing the petitioners to pay the interest over CPF/EPFcontribution would be unjust because they had also thecontribution. At the cost of repetition, we hold that after havinggone through the provisions, the Government has alreadysanctioned approval or permission to apply scheme to theemployees of the Board of contesting respondent. If the amountof the petitioners as received towards EPF/CPF contribution isdirected to be deposited with employer if required, it would notburden on the contesting respondent/Board to apply the schemeto the petitioners.12.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that thepetitioners were also asking to extend benefits of Medical GroupInsurance Scheme pursuant to the Government Resolution dated09.07.2014. Therefore, direction may be issued to the contestingrespondent/Board to apply the scheme.
Decision
6 1058-WP-6567-20-c.odt13.In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that thedirection should be issued to the contesting respondent/Board toconsider the extension of Medical Board Insurance Scheme videGovernment Resolution dated 09.07.2014. 14.In view of the above, we pass the following order:- ORDERi)The writ petition is allowed.ii)The Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 shouldalso be applied to the petitioners. The respondents aredirected to consider the extension of Medical Group InsuranceScheme vide Government Resolution dated 09.07.2014.iii)The contesting respondent No.2 is directed to apply theMaharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 to thepetitioners from the dates of their respective dates ofretirement.iv)So far as the dispute of the CPF/EPF is concerned, whether thepetitioners have to refund the amount or the employer/boardhas to pay certain amount, it would be ascertained afterdetermining the pension of each petitioner on the date ofretirement. After making calculations, if it is found that excesspayment has been made to the petitioners, they woulddeposit it with the Board and if it is found that therespondent/Board has paid less amount, the Board would payit to the petitioners within six months without any interest.v)No order as to costs. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S. G. MEHARE ] JUDGE JUDGErrd