Bombay High Court: Pension Must Not be Denied on Technical Grounds, Emphasizes Value for Government Servants
In a recent case of Dr Pradeep Rangrao Nalawade v. Poona College of Pharmacy, the Bombay High Court reiterated the significance of the right to pension for government servants, stressing that it should not be denied based on technicalities. The court's ruling came while addressing the situation of an employee whose retirement benefits were at stake due to a gap in his service.
Justice GS Patel and Neela Gokhale, the presiding judges, emphasized that pensionary provisions should be interpreted liberally as a social welfare measure. They highlighted that pension is a valuable right granted to government servants to uphold their dignity during their post-retirement phase. The court further stated that such benefits should not be unreasonably denied, particularly on technical grounds.
The petitioner in this case had served as a professor of Pharmacy in the college from October 1999 to April 2009, with intermittent breaks due to the reserved nature of the post. The petitioner's services were utilized during these breaks as no eligible candidate from the Scheduled Tribes (ST) category was appointed. Subsequently, from July 2009 to September 2020, the petitioner rendered continuous service after being appointed in an open category vacancy.
However, the Directorate of Technical Education (DTE), Maharashtra denied the petitioner's post-retirement benefits, citing a shortage of 1 month and 16 days to meet the eligibility criteria for pension. The gap in service was attributed to technical breaks and vacations amounting to 674 days.
The court firmly held that the DTE had erred in calculating the petitioner's qualifying service and unjustly deemed him ineligible for pension. It noted that the payment of salary during technical breaks implied a contractual relationship, and therefore, there was no actual gap in service.
Furthermore, the court expressed disappointment with the college, university, and DTE for their failure to select an eligible candidate for the reserved category post. It criticized them for employing the petitioner as a stop-gap arrangement for a decade, strategically creating technical breaks to hinder the completion of the qualifying period for pension eligibility.
Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to disburse the petitioner's pension in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.
Senior Advocate NV Bandiwadekar, represented by Advocate Aditi Naikare, appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Advocate Mahindra Deshmukh represented the respondent-college. The State was represented by Additional Government Pleader (AGP) VM Mali.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Bombay High Court pension government servants valuable right denied technicalities Dr Pradeep Rangrao Nalawade v. Poona College of Pharmacy retirement benefits service gap liberal construction social welfare measure eligibility Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) Maharashtra contractual relationship stop-gap arrangement qualifying period disbursement rules Senior Advocate NV Bandiwadekar Advocate Aditi Naikare Advocate Mahindra Deshmukh Additional Government Pleader (AGP) VM Mali.
