Bombay High Court
ASHOK LAXMAN DHIRDEversusAHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AHMEDNAGAR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The petitioner is deemed to have become a permanent employee on 01‑07‑1974 and is entitled to pension benefits calculated from that date, rendering the Industrial Court's dismissal unsustainable.
Summary
The petitioner was appointed as a temporary clerk by Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation and, after completing 180 days of continuous service, became a deemed permanent employee in July 1974 under Industrial Court Award No. 431/1969. Despite this, the corporation granted permanency benefits only from 10 April 1978, and calculated his pension on that later date when he retired on 1 June 2007. The petitioner filed a ULP complaint which was dismissed by the Industrial Court, a decision later set aside by the High Court and remanded, after which the Industrial Court again dismissed the complaint. The petitioner argued that the award obliges automatic conferment of permanent status upon completion of the 180‑day period, and that the corporation, as a state instrumentality, cannot arbitrarily defer benefits. The respondent contended that permanency required a formal confirmation order and that the petitioner had accepted the 1978 date. The High Court held that the award’s language creates a deemed permanent status by operation of law from July 1974, and that the corporation must calculate pension and arrears from that date. Consequently, the Industrial Court’s order was quashed and the petitioner was awarded the differential pension and arrears with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner became a deemed permanent employee on completion of 180 days of continuous service in July 1974 under Award No. 431/1969.
- Whether the corporation was entitled to defer the conferment of permanency benefits to 10 April 1978.
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's complaint on the ground of lack of continuous service.
Subjects
- pension
- service benefits
- industrial award
- deemed permanent employee
- continuous service
- state instrumentality
- writ petition
- Industrial Court
- arrears
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:33500
26 WP No.6218.2015
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6218 OF 2015
ASHOK LAXMAN DHIRDE
VERSUS
AHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AHMEDNAGAR
***
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Parag V. Barde
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Vinayak S. Bedre
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 27th July, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order
dated 23.01.2015 rendered by the learned Member, Industrial
Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007, dismissing
the petitioner's complaint, denying the claim for pensionary and
service benefits by counting permanency from July 1974 instead of
10.04.1978.
2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent
Corporation as a temporary clerk. The service conditions of the
employees working under the respondent are governed by the
awards, agreements, and settlements between the recognized
Union and the management from time to time. In Reference (IT)
26 WP No.6218.2015
-2-
No. 431/1969, an award was passed by the learned Industrial
Court and published in the Government Gazette on 13.02.1970,
which entails any temporary employee upon completion of
continuous service of 180 days in the preceding year must be
considered a deemed permanent employee.
3. Following the appointment, the petitioner completed
the required 180 days of continuous service so as to become a
permanent employee in the month of July 1974. The respondent,
however, conferred the actual benefits of permanency to the
petitioner on 10.04.1978. The petitioner continued to serve the
respondent - Corporation and ultimately retired from services upon
superannuation on 01.06.2007. At the time of his retirement, the
respondent computed and disbursed retiral and pensionary benefits
by treating his date of initial permanent appointment as
10.04.1978, ignoring the previous service rendered from July 1974
as a deemed permanent employee.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented
Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007 before the Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar on 01.09.2007. The Industrial Court dismissed the
complaint on 09.04.2013. This Court, however, in Writ Petition No.
26 WP No.6218.2015
-3-
6694/2013, set aside the dismissal by its judgment dated
10.02.2014 and remanded the matter back for an afresh
consideration on merits.
5. Following the remand, the Industrial Court, dismissed
the complaint. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.
6. Mr. Barde, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Industrial Court committed error while
misinterpreting the evidence and the applicable statutory
provisions. The industrial award obligates to confer permanency
upon the completion of 180 days of continuous service, which
cannot be deferred or defeated by the respondent. The finding of
the Trial Court in relation to the lack of continuous service is
contrary to the record. As such, prayed to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, Mr. Bedre, the learned counsel for the
respondent - Municipal Corporation supported the order under
challenge submitting that the petitioner cannot claim the status of
permanency right after the completion of 180 days in absence of
order of confirmation. The respondent submits that the petitioner
accepted the permanency date of 10.04.1978 till retirement
26 WP No.6218.2015
-4-
without raising protest. It is, therefore, submitted that the
complaint presented in the year 2007, challenging an arrangement
that was accepted is delayed one and the Industrial Court was
justified in dismissing the complaint.
8. Upon considering the submissions of litigating sides and
perusing the material on record, it is evident that the language
employed in the award in Reference is once a temporary employee
completes 180 days of continuous service, the status of a deemed
permanent employee is conferred by operation of law. The
respondent, being a “state instrumentality” under Article 12,
cannot act arbitrarily to postpone these benefits to 10.04.1978
without any justification contrary to industrial award. The finding of
the Industrial Court that the petitioner failed to prove continuous
service is perverse, since the petitioner’s unblemished service
record from the year 1974 onwards remains unchallenged.
9. It is a settled principle that pension is neither a bounty
nor a matter of grace; it is a right earned by long and dedicated
service. The wrong calculation and short-payment of pension occur
on the first of every month, giving rise to a continuous and
recurring cause of action.
10. The petitioner was directly impacted by the incorrect
26 WP No.6218.2015
-5-
calculation of his qualifying service when he retired on 01.06.2007.
That employee would be entitled to the dues as claimed from the
ate of entitlement, therefore, dismissing a legitimate retiral claim
purely on technicalities results in to failure of justice.
11. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the Industrial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set
aside.
12. In the view of the aforesaid findings, the present Writ
Petition is allowed.
13. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2015
passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in
Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007 is quashed and set aside.
14. The respondent Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation
shall calculate the petitioner’s qualifying service, retiral benefits,
and pension treating date of permanency as 01.07.1974 and
confer the differential amount and arrears to the petitioner within a
period of three months from today, failing which, it shall incur an
interest @ 6% pa for delayed period.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…