AJINATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves the claim of pensionary benefits and salary fixation, on superannuation.

(2.) THE Petitioner claims that he was initially employed under the Hyderabad State by order dated 7th Khurdad 1357 Fasli and continued to work in the post of Farashgiri on the pay of Rs. 10/- and dearness allowance as applicable. He was initially posted at the school at Chigatgaon and was then transferred to Primary School at Talwada in Vaijapur Taluka of Aurangabad District. He claims that on retirement he was not paid pension and, therefore, he approached this Court. The letter dated 2nd April, 1997, addressed by the Head Master of the Primary School at Talwada to the Petitioner, clearly speaks that he was part time employee and he had already reached the age of superannuation i. e. 60 years. It appears that even after reaching the age of superannuation he continued to attend the duty and hence this letter was issued.

(3.) THE Zilla Parishad has filed affidavit in reply initially and recently additional reply has been filed. The employer-employee relationship has not been denied by the Zilla Parishad but specifically stated that the Petitioner was never appointed on full time basis and, therefore, he is not entitled to the pensionary benefits in view of the bar under Rule 57 (a) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Zilla Parishad claims that the Petitioner has all along fabricated documents with the help of his brother who was also employed as an Assistant Teacher in the said primary school at Talwada. The Petitioner was, for the first time, considered for promotion from part time to full time post of Peon vide order dated 30th March, 1984 on the condition that he would submit certificate of his educational qualifications upto 4th standard. Subsequent correspondence and more particularly the application of the Petitioner dated 2nd May, 1984 indicate that he did not accept the said promotion and instead requested to appoint Shri Walmik Laxman Ekhande in his place as a Peon. The said letter also admits that the Petitioner was a part timer right from 1956 and claims that from 1947 to 1956 he was employed on full time basis as Peon. The Petitioners counsel has submitted before us copies of some muster rolls after 1956. As we have stated that the employer-employee relationship has not been disputed and the only question that we are required to consider is whether the Petitioner was entitled for the pensionary benefits.