Bombay High Court
RAMESH RAJARAMPANT SONWALKARversusTHE EDUCATION OFFICER, (SECONDARY) AND 2 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed, with the Court directing that any pending representation be decided by the Designated Officer, noting the undue delay in raising the grievance.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired employee who superannuated on 30 June 2003, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction for the respondents to consider a break in his service when computing his pension, along with claims for arrears, increments, and compensation for mental agony. He alleged that a representation made in 2019 regarding the service break remained pending, and he sought immediate relief despite having received pension for nearly 18 years. The Court observed that the grievance should have been raised at the time of retirement and noted the unexplained delay in filing the petition. It held that any pending representation must be decided by the Designated Officer in accordance with the law, but the Court itself would not intervene. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. The judgment underscores the principle that delays in asserting service‑related claims can preclude judicial intervention under Article 226.
Issues considered
- Whether a retired employee can seek judicial intervention under Article 226 to condone a break in service for pension computation after an 18‑year delay.
- Whether the Court can direct the respondents to decide a pending representation concerning pensionable service.
Subjects
- Article 226
- pension
- service break
- superannuation
- delay
- administrative law
- writ petition
Judgment
14-WP 2678-21.DOC
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2678 OF 2021
Ramesh Rajarampant Sonwalkar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Education Officer (Secondary), M.C.G.M. & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Prajakt Arjunwadkar with Mr. O. S. Shinde for Petitioner.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G. P. with Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State.
Ms. Pushpa Yadav for BMC.
Digitally
__________
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.08.28
19:20:37
+0530 CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 25 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following reliefs:-
“a) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or
directions, direct the Respondents to immediately act upon the letter
No. Ma.sha.vi /2/361 dated 28/11/1985 and the letter No.
Ma.sha.vi/969 dated 23/07/2019 and to take immediate decision about
the condonation of break in the service of the petitioner.
c) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or
directions, direct the Respondents to pay all the dues of pension and
gratuity with interest to the Petitioner immediately.
d) This Hon'ble Court by way of appropriate Writ, order or
directions, direct the Respondents to pay the yearly increment from the
date of appointment.
d) This Hon'ble Court by appropriate Writ, order or direction
direct the Respondents to pay the compensation for mental agony
caused to the Petitioner due to the negligence of the Respondent.
e) Any other order as in the nature and circumstances of the case
may require, be granted in favour of the Petitioner.”
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner superannuated on 30 June 2003.
Nonetheless, nearly 18 years after his retirement, by the present petition, the
Page 1 of 2
25 August 2026
14-WP 2678-21.DOC
petitioner has raised a grievance that the period of break in service has not been
taken into consideration for computing his pensionable service. This despite the
fact that he has been receiving pension for almost 18 years from the date of his
retirement till the filing of the present petition. We find that there is no
explanation whatsoever for the delay in raising such grievance, which, in our
opinion, ought to have been raised immediately on his retirement.
3. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is not receiving pension. His
grievance is only that a certain period ought to be reckoned for the purpose of
computing his pensionable service. It appears from the record that the petitioner
made a representation to that effect sometime in the year 2019.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, if any such representation
is pending and has not yet been decided, the same be decided by the Designated
Officer in accordance with law.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed, however, subject to the aforesaid
observations. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
25 August 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.