wp2440.08 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2440 OF 2008 Abdul Habib S/o Moh. Hussain, Age-61 years, Occu:Nil, R/o. C/o- Shahin Traders, H.No.5-3-82, Killa Road, Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Nanded, Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded, Through its Commissioner. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mrs. T.W. Pathan Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri.S.V. Kurundkar Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2011. wp2440.08 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner worked as a Peon with Respondent No.2 - the Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded. By an application dated 8th April, 1993 addressed to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Nanded, the Petitioner prayed for acceptance of his resignation and sanction of pension and other service benefits. By communication dated 16th February 2008, the Deputy Commissioner Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded rejected the Petitioner's prayer for grant of pension by giving reference to provisions of Rule 46(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The view of the Respondent Corporation is, that as the Petitioner had wp2440.08 3 tendered resignation, he was not entitled for pension. 3. This Petition was filed on 13th March, 2008. The Respondent No.2 Corporation has preferred not to file any reply to the Petition. 4. Shri. Kurundkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 Corporation submits that as the Petitioner tendered his resignation, he was not entitled for grant of pension. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that inspite of the fact that the Petitioner rendered twenty years service with the Respondent Corporation, he has not been granted pension. The word "resignation" appearing in the communication made by the Petitioner dated 8th April, 1993 was misconstrued by the Respondent Corporation, which has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner's interest. The Respondent wp2440.08 4 Corporation could very well take sympathetic view and construe the application in its proper spirit, so that pensionary benefits could be utilized by the Petitioner for the services rendered by him. The counsel further submits that the Petitioner was not keeping good health and due to which the Petitioner tendered the said application. 6. Considering the facts of the case and submissions advanced, we find that the Respondent Corporation is required to reconsider the application filed by the Petitioner, in view of the fact that the Petitioner served for twenty years with the Respondent Corporation. In the application filed by the Petitioner, he has prayed for grant of pension and therefore, it is necessary to consider the application afresh by the Respondent Corporation. 7. The impugned order dated 16th February, 2008, Exhibit-D, passed by the Respondent No.2 wp2440.08 5 Corporation, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2 Corporation. The Petitioner must be noticed by the Respondent No.2 Corporation. The Petitioner is entitled to appear before the Authority of the Respondent No.2 Corporation. After considering the entire record and hearing the Petitioner; the Respondent No.2 Corporation is directed to pass appropriate orders within THREE MONTHS from today. 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp2440.08