Decided on February 25,2016

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri Appellant
Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Mazoor Union And Ors. Respondents


- (1.) All the above petitions have been admitted by this Court on 8.3.2011.
(2.) The order passed by this Court on 8.3.2011 reads as under: "1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Union has no authority to file the complaint on behalf of retired employees. He further submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer as such between the retired employees and the petitioner herein. He further submits that the complaint was filed in 2004 making grievance about the pension which according to the complainant was due to be paid in 1996. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent Union was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these writ petitions, relying on the pleadings in the petitions and grounds raised therein, may be allowed. 2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the relevant rules and in particular Rule 129B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and submits that once the petitioners have granted pension and taken decision to pay pension, in that case interest should necessarily follow though members of the respondent Union were entitled to receive pension in the year 1996. However, the pension is paid in 2006 with retrospective effect. However, the interest for the relevant period has not been paid. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these petitions may not be allowed. 3. Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below and more particularly the discussion in para 12 of the impugned judgment, I am not inclined to grant any interim relief. The relevant rule has been considered by the Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment. Considering Rule 129B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, I am not persuaded to take different view. However, some arguable questions have been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that after retirement whether relationship of employee and employer exists between the petitioner and members of the respondents Union and also filing of the complaint in 2004 making grievance of nonpayment of pension from the date of retirement i.e. in 1996. 4. Rule. Mr. Shelke & A.G.P. Mr. Kale, waive service of notice for the respective respondents. 5. Interim relief refused."
(3.) Since a common issue is involved in all these matters and considering that the petitioner Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth is common in all these petitions, these matters have been taken up together for final hearing by the consent of the parties.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.