Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

9 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1998 INSC 23913 May 1998

The appellant, a civil servant, challenged a compulsory retirement notice dated 23 January 1989 issued under Rule 10(4)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, arguing that the review procedure prescribed in the Government circular of 1 September 1983 was not completed before he turned fifty, and

MADHUKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2014 INSC 26911 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Madhukar, a former government employee who resigned on 18 July 1960 and immediately joined Hislop College as a lecturer, retired from the college on 24 May 1983. He sought to have his earlier government service (21 June 1950 to 17 July 1960) counted for pension under the Government Resolution dated 11 March 1992, which

MEGHRAJ URKUDAJI TEMPLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1998 INSC 29610 August 1998Dismissed

The appellant, an Executive Engineer who turned 50 in May 1985, was not reviewed under the 1983 circular that required performance review before age 50. Instead, his case was reviewed in June 1987 under a later 1986 circular that raised the performance standard to "not below good" and ordered his compulsory retirement.

RAGHUNATH ANANT GOVILKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2008 INSC 1548 February 2008Dismissed

The appellant, a former employee of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, was charged with offences under IPC sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468 and 471 for allegedly falsifying allotment of premises and issuing spurious rent receipts. He sought discharge under Section 228 of the CrPC, arguing that no s

KADIRKHAN AHMEDKHAN PATHANversusTHE MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ORS.

2026 INSC 166 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Storage Superintendent of the Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation, retired on 31 August 2008 and was later served with a series of show‑cause notices alleging large railway transportation and storage losses during his tenure. After an unsatisfactory reply, the Corporation instituted a depa

SUKHDEOversusTHE.COMMISSIONER AMRAVATI DIVISION, AMRAVATI AND ANR.

1996 INSC 6162 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Sukhdeo, a Class III government employee with 30 years of service but under 55 years of age, was compulsorily retired on 23 March 1990 under Rule 65(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, based on adverse remarks in his confidential reports for 1987‑88 and 1988‑89. The remarks were contradictory

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusKESHAV RAMCHANDRA PANGARE AND ANR.

1999 INSC 5051 November 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Respondent K.R. Pangare, a retired Deputy Engineer of the Maharashtra Public Works Department, was charged in 1990 with multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Although sanction for prosecution was obtained in August 1989, he challenged the criminal proceedings before the Bom

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search