1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1530 OF 2009 Punjaram s/o Khandu Najan, R/o- At Post-Kingaon, Tq-Phulambri, Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.J.M. Murkute Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The Petitioner claims that he worked as daily wager for number of years till 1st January 1994, when he was regularly appointed. He retired on 30th June, 2002. The Petitioner claims pensionary benefits. Original Application No.668 of 2003 was filed for the said purpose before the Tribunal. By an order dated 24th April 2008, the Tribunal rejected the Original Application. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on Rule 30 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, more particularly, Rule 30, Exception, Note No.2. In the submissions of the counsel, the earlier period during which the Petitioner worked as daily wager, has to be counted for making up period of ten years which would qualify the Petitioner to claim pension. Admittedly the regular service of the Petitioner falls short of ten years. The Counsel places reliance on the reported Judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Parshuram Vithoba Bhandare vs. State of 3 Maharashtra and another, 2001 (4) Mh. L.J. Page 587. 4. Considering the provisions of Rule 30, Exception, Note-2 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, we find that same cannot be applied in the facts of the case, as the said Note applies to the employees of Former Indian States. 5. The Respondents filed affidavit in reply. The A.G.P. submits that the Petitioner does not qualify to get pensionary benefits. 6. The Tribunal observed that the Petitioner could not claim continuation of service as of right, as the Petitioner was working on daily wages during the period from 1984-85 till 1st January, 1994. The Tribunal referred to the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 S.C.C. Page 1. 4 7. In the light of the facts of the case and the reply filed, in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp1530.09