ASARAM YESUJI GHOGARE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Case Details
1 10467.21WP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 WRIT PETITION NO.10467 OF 2021 ... ASARAM YESUJI GHOGARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS ... Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.M.P.Tripathi AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs.M.A.Deshpande Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3 : Mr.S.R.Yadav … CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G.DIGE, JJ. DATE : 04.05.2022 P.C. : 1. Leave to correct the surname of the petitioner. Correction be carried out forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses-B and C, as under: B) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the communicated dated 14.02.2018, issued by the respondent No.3, thereby rejecting the claim of petitioner for 2 10467.21WP pension and pensionary benefits, may kindly be quashed and set-aside and further the respondents may kindly be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith along with arrears of pension and retirement benefits. C) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant provisional pension to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner belongs to Andh – Scheduled Tribe category. He has received a certificate of validity from the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 30.11.2013. He was S.S.C. qualified when he was appointed as an untrained teacher, vide appointment order dated 26.07.1984. There was a vacancy created on account of the retirement of an employee by name, Solanke. The text of the appointment order reads, as under: [kkyhy mesnokjkP;k use.kwdk R;kaP;k ukokleksj n”kZfoysY;k iz”kkyk dsanzh; izkFkfed “kkGk&izkFkfed “kkGsr ftYgk lsok ¼oxZ 3½ nq¸;e 3 10467.21WP “kS{kf.kd izkFkfed f”k{kd :-260&10&390&15&420 foLrkj 15&494 ;k osru Js.khr vkfFkZd fu;ekuqlkj egkxkbZ HkRR;ke/;s dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- v-dz- mesnokjkps ukao o iRrk use.kqd fnysyh “kkGk fooj.k 34 Jh- ?kksxjs vklkjke ;slwth] eq- lk[kjrGk- iks- o:M izk-”kk- “ksoMh ¼t-½ ds- Jh lksGads ;kaP;k dU;k “kkGk dkSlMh] fjDr tkxsoj- ¼u-½ rk- ftarwj] ft- ijHk.kh- rk- ftarwj] ft-ijHk.kh- lgh@& lgh@& Lok{kjhr ¼ j- “ka- jkBksM ½ f”k{k.kkf/kdkjh 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed after 1972 and was only S.S.C. qualified. He did not possess D.Ed. qualification so as to be treated as a deemed trained teacher. It is also undisputed that he superannuated on 30.09.2017, after putting in almost 33 years and 2 months. The petitioner is governed by the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services Rules. 5. In identical set of facts, this Court has delivered the judgment in a group of matters on 04.07.2019, in Writ
Legal Reasoning
Petition No. 6143 of 2016 filed by Smt. Umabai w/o. 4 10467.21WP Ramkrishna Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others wherein this Court concluded in paragraphs 13 to 18 as under :- 13. It is not disputed by respondents that, the petitioners were duly appointed on a substantive and sanctioned posts. They have completed the minimum period of qualifying service. In fact, most of the petitioners have completed more than 30 years of service and honourably retired on attaining age of superannuation. They were treated as regular employees, were paid the regular salary, their appointments are approved as per their qualification. No rule exists in the Pension Rules that would deny the petitioners right to claim pension. The posts these petitioners were holding, were never declared to be non pensionable or that the posts created by it shall not be qualifying service for pension. In absence of any rules, denying the right to get pension to the petitioners will not be permissible. 14. The Government Resolution dated 04.10.1983 prescribing that those appointed prior to the cut off date i. e. 01.07.1972 and 5 10467.21WP possessing only S.S.C. qualification would be deemed trained teachers not those appointed till the date of Government resolution is unreasonable classification as is observed by the Division Bench of this Court under judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 in a case of Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil Vs. The Education Officer (Primary) Sangli and others referred to (supra). The Division Bench of this Court at its Principal Seat at Bombay in the said case has observed that, the cut off date for making the pensionary benefits applicable to the untrained teachers as on 01st July, 1972 cannot be said to have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This Court in the said judgment further observed that, it would have been a different matter, had the State Government notified the date of Government Resolution or subsequent date as a cut off date for making the pensionary benefits applicable. However, by the 1983 Government Resolution the State could not have gone backward by nine years to provide a cut off date. 15. The provisions of the Government Resolution dated 04th October, 1983 are self eloquent. It has been observed in the said 6 10467.21WP Government Resolution that these teachers have rendered laudable service and during their tenure the educational institutions have prospered and the results of such institutions are also excellent. The Division Bench in the case of Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil Vs. The Education Officer (Primary) Sangli and others (supra) further observed that, cut off date provided does not have any rational and one could have considered, if the cut off date provided was the date of Government Resolution or the subsequent date and in clear words observed that the Government Resolution does not have any nexus with the object. The Division Bench further observed that, by the 1983 Government Resolution, the State could not have gone backward by nine years to provide a cut of date. 16. Moreover, it would appear that all these petitioners were appointed after following due selection process. Their appointments have been approved and for all purposes they were treated as regular employees on substantive posts. They have rendered their services till the age of superannuation. Till the date of retirement these petitioners were at no point of 7 10467.21WP time treated as ineligible for appointments. It is not case that the petitioners have suppressed or misrepresented about their qualification. The respondents consciously allowed petitioners to render services till they retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Their service record is unblemished and are appointed after following due selection process. They have rendered their services to the satisfaction of the institution and the authorities. They were paid salaries from the funds of the State. 17. As these petitioners were treated as regular employees working and officiating on substantive vacant posts till the age of their retirement, they were allowed to be honorably retired on attaining age of superannuation. Some of them have been promoted as Head Master. Thereafter the respondents could not have come with the case that these petitioners are not entitled for retiral benefits and pension on the ground that they did not possess necessary qualification. It would be too late in the day for the State to contend that, these petitioners would not be entitled for retiral and pensionary benefits on account that they did not possess the required qualification. 8 10467.21WP 18. Considering the aforesaid conspectus and the discussion supra, we direct that the petitioners would be entitled for pension and pensionary benefits. The respondents shall consider case of the petitioners for pensionary benefits and shall not refuse to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the necessary qualification. The same shall be considered expeditiously and preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of this order. 6. We find that as the petitioner was identically placed, the Education Department should have ensured that retired teachers like the petitioner are not compelled to approach the High Court by filing individual cases, when this Court has already pronounced it’s view on 13.12.2017 in Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil (supra). 7. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the communication dated 9th February, 2022, issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra, School Education and Sports Department, 9 10467.21WP addressed to the Director of Primary Education, Education Directorate, Maharashtra State, Pune, taking cognizance of several orders passed by this Court as well as the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and the Review Petition filed on behalf of the State in similar matters. Consequentially by the said communication, which is marked as ‘X-1’ for identification, the Director of Primary Education was informed that such untrained teachers, who were employed prior to 01.07.1992, were to be considered as deemed trained teachers. Similarly, considering various orders passed by this Court which were approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a decision has been taken by the State of Maharashtra, that similar employees, who were appointed after 01.07.1972 as untrained teachers and have superannuated after putting in lengthy service, should be treated as a special case and they should be granted pensionary benefits. No doubt, this communication is restricted only to those who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions. 10 10467.21WP 8. It should be the endeavour of one and all, that unnecessary litigation should be avoided and if possible necessary directions be issued in such manner that unnecessary litigation could be prevented. The case in hands is one such case wherein we find this litigation could have avoided considering the view taken by this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2017 in Smt.Gokula Vilas Patil (supra). It appears that the Education Department has done little to convey the said judgment to all its Departments so as to initiate appropriate steps, which would not only protect such petitioner from suffering rigors of tardy litigation, but would also curtail unnecessary litigation in court. 9. Considering the above, we find that the direction, as issued in Smt. Umabai w/o. Ramkrishna Deshmukh (supra), needs to be issued in this case as well. Consequentially, this petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause-B. We are quashing the proposed action against the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jintoor, vide the 11 10467.21WP impugned communication dated 14.02.2018, since there is a judicial pronouncement of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2017 in Gokula Vilas Patil (supra) and 04.07.2019 in Smt. Umabai w/o. Ramkrishna Deshmukh (supra). In the event of any disciplinary action having been taken against the then Block Education Officer, Shri V.D.Rankhamb, we would appreciate the recalling of the order of punishment issued to Mr.Rankhamb by the Zilla Parishad, Parbhani and initiate remedial steps in that regard. 10. Considering the above, we hold the petitioner entitled for pension and pensionary benefits and the respondents shall consider this case for grant of such benefits by treating the petitioner to be a deemed trained teacher, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or before 30th August, 2022. The arrears of pension would also be calculated and shall be paid prior to the said date. 11. We direct respondent no.1 to circulate this order as well as judgment dated 13.12.2017 delivered in 12 10467.21WP Smt. Gokula Vilas Patil (supra), to all Zilla Parishads in the State of Maharashtra so as to locate similar cases and initiate remedial steps for granting them the benefits in view of such directions so as to prevent the employees from approaching the Court and in order to curb unnecessary litigation in this Court. A specific circular stating that this law shall apply to similarly placed employees, shall be issued. [S.G.DIGE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.] DDC