1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1030 OF 1998
Sumanbai d/o Damodharrao Kurdukar,
since deceased, through legal representative
Raghvendra s/o Shripatrao Joshi,
age: 50 years, Occ: Business,
R/o `Apurva', B-10, Indraprastha Enclave,
Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad,
Tq. and District Aurangabad. Petitioner
Versusig
1 The State of Maharashtra
through the Principal Secretary,
Urban and Rural Development
Department and School
Education Department,
Mantralaya, Maharashtra State,
Mumbai-32.
2 Zilla Parishad, Latur,
through its Chief Executive Officer,
Latur.
3 The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
4 Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
5 Accountant General-II,
Near General Post Office,
Nagpur.
6 Smt.R.H.Pandit,
Desk Officer,
Rural Development and
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:18 :::
2
Water Conservation Division,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents
Mr.V.V.Dhage, advocate for the applicant.
Mr.K.B.Choudhary, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 5.
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3.
CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND
S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.
th
DATE : 8 July, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.):
1
The petitioner filed present petition seeking directions to the
Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to fix pay of the petitioner by taking into
st
consideration her application dated 31 March 1989 regarding her option to
continue her existing scale for the purpose of pension admissible to her.
2 Under the relevant Government Resolution, for availing the
st
benefit, an employee was required to give his option by 31 March 1989.
According to the petitioner, said option is given on that day. However, this
fact is disputed by Respondent-Zilla Parishad as well as State Government.
According to them, the option is given in 1993 i.e. much after the cut off
date.
3 In that view of the matter, since petition involves disputed
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary
jurisdiction, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
4 In any case, pensionary benefits are only payable to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:07:19 :::
3
employee and legal heirs do not get any right to the pension. In that view of
the matter also, no case is made out for interference.
5 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to
costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
*******
adb/wp103098
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:07:19 :::