-1- GPN-J-2459-ARHCBN-3-04-1,00,000-ALA4* [Spl.-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.79e. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.42/2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 460/2004 Dr. Shrinivas Laxman Lokre -versus- Dr. S.N. Pathan and others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2009. The matter was heard in earlier roaster by me and again today the matter is before me. The grievance of unfortunate petitioner is that he is not getting his pension since 1988 i.e. the year in which he submitted his resignation and it was accepted. During the earlier hearing I have passed some orders in the matter from time to time and accordingly, the Accountant General of Maharashtra -II was added as party respondent and parties have also filed their replies. Grievance of Advocate Shri A.A. Naik, for petitioner is that the Grievance Committee functioning under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 ( hereinafter referred to as “the 1994 Act” for -2- short) has on 22.07.2003 decided the grievance of the present petitioner and found him entitled to pension and gratuity benefits w.e.f. 15.01.1988 i.e. the date on which his resignation was accepted. The Management Council accepted this resolution of Grievance Committee and vide item no.171 in its meeting conducted on 16.08.2003 accordingly Registrar, Nagpur University communicated the said adjudication to the petitioner on 30.08.2003. As the petitioner had already made grievance way back in the year 1995 and decision of Grievance Committee which is final under section 57[2] of the 1994 Act was not implemented, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 460/2004 and that Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court observing that respondent no.2 Joint Director Higher Education should take appropriate action within a period of two months from the receipt of the pension papers of petitioner from the respondent no.1 Nagpur University. Thereafter as the decision was not being taken the present Contempt Petition is filed. After the contempt petition was filed, reply has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before this Court and they pointed out that the pension case of present petitioner was forwarded to the Joint Director on 15.04.2004 and Joint Director in turn -3- forwarded the same to the respondent no.4 Accountant General on 16.6.2005. Office of respondent no.4 by communication dt. 19.04.2005 informing the Joint Director that as petitioner had resigned from service on 16.01.1988, in view of the provisions of Rule 46[1] of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Pension Rules” for short), he was not entitled to pensionary benefits. The Desk Officer of State Government wrote to University on 30.06.2007 and informed the University that it was the responsibility of the University to pay pensionary benefits from its own fund to present petitioner. On 27.03.2008 the Registrar of University communicated to State Government that the petitioner had opted for contributory provident fund and had not switched to pension scheme within the stipulated time, he was not eligible for pension. It was also communicated to the State Government that because of this it was not proper to release the said benefits from funds of University and State Government should bear the expenditure thereof. On 29.09.2008 respondent no.3 Joint Director has filed affidavit before this court on same lines and along with it he filed a communication dated 28.8.2008 by which the State Government -4- reiterated its earlier stand that University should pay pension from its own fund. Respondent no.4 has on 27.11.2008 filed affidavit and pointed out that he was not party to the writ petition and by examining the pension case it was found that as per Rule 46[1] of the Pension Rules, petitioner was not entitled to grant of pension. In these circumstances, Advocate Shri Naik has pointed out that the entitlement of pension as worked out by respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the resolution of Grievance Committee accepted by the Management Council is final and needs to be implemented. He has further stated that the provisions of Rule 46 of Pension Rules are not relevant because the service conditions are regulated by Statute 72 framed under the 1994 Act, particularly Rule no.3 and 20. He states that either respondent no.3 or then respondent nos. 1 and 2 have to pay the pension to present petitioner who is now more than 75 years old. Advocate Shri Kulkarni, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has stated that not only Rule 46 of the Pension Rules, but then Rule 9 of Statute 72 also contemplated that a person resigning from service is not entitled to pension. According to him in view of these provisions, the resolution passed by the -5- Grievance Committee or the Management Council cannot be construed to mean that these provisions have been superseded. He further states that though petitioner is relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, the said judgment cannot be of any use in the present matter, because the case of petitioner has been processed in terms of directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Advocate Shri Kulkarni as also learned A.G.P. relied upon the order of Division Bench dated 23.02.2005 and point out that by said order the respondent no.2 therein i.e. the present respondent no.3 was directed to take appropriate action within a period of three months. It is stated that respondent no.4 Accountant General was not party to the Writ Petition and after the matter went before the said Authority, the said Authority disclosed that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of pension. According to them there is no contempt in the present matter and in any case, the application of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court or correctness of the action taken in the light of the various provisions mentioned above, cannot be gone into by this court in contempt jurisdiction. After hearing the parties, I find that before Division Bench on 23.02.2005 the respondent no.2 -6- submitted that after receipt of pension case they would scrutinize the same and if it satisfied the requirement of Pension Rules, necessary further action would be taken. This court also directed appropriate action within two months. Respondent no.4 Accountant General was not party and after scrutiny of the case of petitioner in the light of the Pension Rules, respondent no.4 found that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of pension. It is to be noted that the provisions of Statute 72, Rule 6 and provisions of Rule 46 of the Pension Rules disqualifies a person resigning from service from pension and other retiremental benefits and said provisions cannot be questioned in contempt jurisdiction. It is therefore, obvious that at this stage it is difficult for this court to hold that any contempt has been committed by the respondents by denying the pension claim of present petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to take further appropriate steps challenging the consideration of his claim by respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein on merits before the appropriate Forum. Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.