Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHRI RAMMURTI R. YADAVversusTHE TRUSTEE DURGA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ORS.

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the earlier objections are no longer relevant, and the pension proposal may be processed without hindrance.

Summary

The petitioner, a retired assistant teacher, sought pension benefits but faced objections that he was overage at appointment and lacked requisite qualifications. The State Government order dated 09.05.2019 granted age relaxation, removing the overage objection. A prior judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3120 of 2011 (21.03.2012) held that the petitioner possessed the necessary qualifications and could be appointed as Head Master, eliminating the qualification objection. The Court observed that, in view of these developments, there was no impediment for the management to resubmit the pension proposal. It directed the management to submit the proposal within four weeks, the corporation to communicate any deficiencies within two weeks, and to forward its recommendation within eight weeks, after which the competent authority would act expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the earlier objections of overage and lack of qualification preclude the grant of pension to the petitioner
  • Whether the State Government's age relaxation order and the prior Court judgment remove the impediments to processing the pension proposal

Subjects

  • pension
  • age relaxation
  • qualification
  • teacher appointment
  • writ petition
  • High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                                                                        26. WP 10000 of 2017.doc




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10000 OF 2017

                             Shri Rammurti R. Yadav                                ...Petitioner

                                        Vs.

                             The Trustee Durga Education
                             Society and Ors.                                      ...Respondents

                                                              *****
                             Adv. Mandar Limaye i/by Adv. Mayuresh Lagu - Advocate for the
                             Petitioner
                             Adv. Sagar Patil - for the Respondent No. 1-Management.
                             Adv. Rohit Sakhadeo – For Respondent No. 2
                                                              *****
                                                 CORAM :         M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                                 S. M. MODAK, JJ.

                                                 DATE      :       06th AUGUST 2026

                             P. C. :-

                             1.      Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

                             2.      The Petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher and has since

                             retired from service. The pension proposal of the Petitioner was facing

                             a difficulty on two grounds. One was that the Petitioner was overage at

                             the time of initial appointment, and the second was that the Petitioner

                             was not qualified. So far as objection of being overage is concerned, by

          Digitally signed
          by SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
        YELKAR
KSHITIJ Date:
YELKAR 2026.08.06
        18:46:38
          +0530              Seema                                                                         1/3
                                                           26. WP 10000 of 2017.doc




the order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the State Government, the age

relaxation has been granted. So far as objection of qualification is

concerned, by virtue of the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by this

Court in Writ Petition No. 3120 of 2011, para no. 9 therein records

that “the Petitioner will have to be treated as trained teacher as he

possesses     requisite qualification and is therefore entitled to be

appointed as Head Master”. In such view of the matter, there is no

difficulty for the Management to resubmit the proposal for pension as

the aforesaid difficulties are no more relevant.

3.      Learned counsel for the Corporation has placed on record

compilation of the documents. It is taken on record and marked as

‘Anneuxre-X’ for identification.

4.      Learned counsel for the Management submitted that within a

period of four weeks from today, a proposal for grant of pensionary

benefits will be submitted to the Navi Mumbai Corporation.

Deficiency, if any, in the proposal shall be communicated by the

Corporation to the Management within a period of two weeks from the

date of its receipt.

5.      Within a period of eight weeks from receipt of the proposal, the

Seema                                                                         2/3
                                                     26. WP 10000 of 2017.doc




Corporation shall submit its recommendation to the Competent

Authority who shall thereafter act in furtherance of such

recommendation expeditiously.

6.      With the above observations, the present Writ Petition is

disposed of.



 (S. M. MODAK, J.)                         (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Seema                                                                   3/3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.