1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2001 Shri Dwarkanath son of Dhanraj Loya, Age 52 years, Occupation business, residing at KrantiChowk Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra,Higher and Technical Education and Employment Planning Department, Mantralaya Annex, Bomay -400 032. 3. The Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad through its Registrar. 4. The Deputy Accountant General (Pensions) Office of the Accountant General -II Government of Maharahshtra, Nagpur- 440 001. .. Respondents Mr. Santosh G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent No.1 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 4th AUGUST, 2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] 1. The petition arises out of peculiar circumstances. The petitioner was initially appointed by the respondent The petitioner's services came to be confirmed vide order dated 17th/21st March, 1973. However, it appears that the petitioner resigned on 1st October, 1975. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted vide 10th November, 1975. 2. It appears that the petitioner was again permitted to join the services by the respondent University vide order dated 30th December, 1977. By the said order, he was also allowed to withdraw the resignation. By the same order, his absence from November 11, 1975 till resumption of duty was regularized as extraordinary leave without pay. 3. The petitioner sent notice for voluntary retirement on 13th September, 1990. The same was accepted on 24/25th September, 1990. However, it appears that the respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension on the ground that he has not completed 20 years of service. 4. Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though initially argued on merits of the matter, on instructions, does not press the petition. He submits that in view of Rule 23 r/w. 110(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, the petitioner is entitled for grant of pension. He submits that the State Government has 3 ample powers in view of the aforesaid two rules to grant pension in the extraordinary circumstances. 5. We do find that the facts of the present case are peculiar and deserves consideration by the State Government, by applying the provisions of rule 23 r/w. 110(2)(b). However, since the said power is vested with the State Government, it would be appropriate that the petitioner makes a representation to the State Government and the State Government decides it in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. 6. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government for invoking the powers under Rule 23 r/w. 110(2)(b) of the said Rules. The said representation would be made within a period of 4 weeks from today. 7. It is made clear that on receipt of the said representation, the respondent NO.2, after taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the present case, would consider and decide the same, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt thereof. 8. It is made clear that we have not observed anything on the merits of the matter and as such, the disposal of the present petition would not come in the way of the present petitioner in agitating the point raised in the present petition, if 4 required, at appropriate stage, in an appropriate proceedings. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B.R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/