{"id":135247,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-09T21:07:50","modified_gmt":"2018-06-09T15:37:50","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n                      WRIT PETITION NO.5337 OF 2001\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     01.   The State of Maharashtra,\n           through Principal Secretary,\n           Maharashtra, Mantralaya,\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n           Mumbai.\n\n     02.   The Commandant,\n           S.R.P.F Group-VI,\n           Dhule, District Dhule.\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     03.   The Inspector,\n           Motor Transport Department,\n                      \n           S.R.P.F. Group No.6,                            Petitioners\/ori.\n           Dhule, District Dhule.                          Respondents.\n                     \n                 versus\n\n          Yuvraj s\/o Dashrath Patil,\n          age 49 years, occupation:\n          pensioner,r\/o Utkarsh Colony,\n      \n\n          Plot No.76, Sakri Road, Dhule,        Respondent\/orig.\n          District Dhule.                       applicant.\n   \n\n\n\n     ------------------------------------------------------------\n          Shri V.B.Ghatge,Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the Petitioners.\n          Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate, for the respondent.\n     ------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n                       Coram:S.B.Deshmukh &   Shrihari P.Davare,JJ.\n                       Judgment reserved   on : 18th October, 2010.\n                       Judgment pronounced on : 26th October, 2010.\n\n\n     JUDGMENT (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
     01.         By the present petition filed under Articles 226<\/p>\n
     and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have<\/p>\n
     prayed that the impugned judgment and order dated 11.4.2001<\/p>\n
     delivered   by    the   learned       Vice    Chairman,          Maharashtra<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
     Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad (“MAT”\n<\/p>\n
     for    short),       in    Original     Application          No.776       of   2000,      be<\/p>\n
     quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     02.             The factual matrix of the present case is that<\/p>\n
     the    respondent         herein-original          applicant         joined      S.R.P.F.\n<\/p>\n
     Group-8,       as    Constable,        on   24.11.1971.        Initially,         he     was<\/p>\n
     promoted to the post of driver in the year 1982, and he was<\/p>\n
     further       promoted      to   the    post      of   Driver-Mechanic           in    1984<\/p>\n
              of    Head<\/p>\n
     which, according to the respondent, is equivalent to the<\/p>\n
     post                      Constable.        It    is   also     contended         by     the<\/p>\n
     Respondent that he was rewarded with 15 to 20 rewards out of<\/p>\n
     which, 6 rewards were granted during the year 1995-96 and<\/p>\n
     accordingly, respondent claims that his performance was good<\/p>\n
     during    his       service      career.     He    also      faced    2   departmental<\/p>\n
     enquiries, but he was exonerated                       therein, and no adverse<\/p>\n
     remarks were communicated to him during his service period.\n<\/p>\n
     The    respondent         was    suspended        by   the    authorities         on     the<\/p>\n
     ground of private quarrel and he was asked to attend daily<\/p>\n
     parade in the year 1992 to which he resisted. Respondent<\/p>\n
     also contends that less payment was tried to be given to him<\/p>\n
     in September 1996, but on his resistance, he was paid full<\/p>\n
     payment. Accordingly, it is the grievance of the respondent<\/p>\n
     that he was harassed on one or the other pretext, and when<\/p>\n
     it became intolerable, he made representation on 16.7.1997<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
     to allow him to take voluntary retirement after three months<\/p>\n
     from    the    date       of   said    representation.             However,          since    no<\/p>\n
     reply    was    received          by    the    respondent,           he       sent    another<\/p>\n
     representation            to           petitioner          No.1,         on        27.9.1997.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter,       respondent           sent    notice       on    16.10.1997          to     the<\/p>\n
     authorities,         stating      that    the       respondent          has    a     right    to<\/p>\n
     retire voluntarily as per Section 66(2) of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Civil    Services          (Pension)      Rules,       1982        (for       short,       “MCS<\/p>\n
     (Pension) Rules”), since                 nothing was             communicated to             him<\/p>\n
     within    three<\/p>\n
     dated 16.7.1997.\n<\/p>\n
                          months       from    the       date    of    his<\/p>\n
                                    The Respondent again sent representation
\n                                                                                representation<\/p>\n
     on 14.3.1998, stating that he may be permitted to retire on<\/p>\n
     30.4.1998.           He    sent    further        representation              on    8.5.1998,<\/p>\n
     contending that he is deemed to have retired with effect<\/p>\n
     from 16.5.1998.\n<\/p>\n
     03.            Accordingly,            the        respondent         went             to     the<\/p>\n
     authorities to deposit all his saranjams, such as, uniforms,<\/p>\n
     badge,    etc.,       but      same    was    not     accepted          and     hence,       the<\/p>\n
     respondent      made       another       representation            to      permit     him     to<\/p>\n
     deposit the said articles, and requested the authorities to<\/p>\n
     forward his pension papers.                       However, since no action was<\/p>\n
     taken    by    the    petitioners         herein,          the    present          respondent<\/p>\n
     approached            the      learned        Lok     Ayukta,         to      redress        his<\/p>\n
     grievance, on 6.7.1998. Accordingly, the learned Lok Ayukta<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
     intervened    in    the    matter       due    to        which,            on    23.3.1999<\/p>\n
     petitioner    No.1    directed      Petitioner                No.2    to        accept   the<\/p>\n
     voluntary    retirement      notice          given       by    the        respondent      on<\/p>\n
     16.7.1997 and consequently the petitioners                           passed the order<\/p>\n
     on 21.9.1999 accepting the notice for volutnary retirement<\/p>\n
     and allowed the respondent herein to retire voluntarily from<\/p>\n
     the date of acceptance of the saidnotice, but                             the period of<\/p>\n
     16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999 was treated as leave without salary<\/p>\n
     and allowances. It is the contention of the respondent that<\/p>\n
     took   any<\/p>\n
     the petitioners-authorities<\/p>\n
                   decision     on     his
\n                                                  neither<\/p>\n
                                              representation
\n                                                                    communicated,<\/p>\n
                                                                               for    voluntary
\n                                                                                               nor<\/p>\n
     retirement for substantial period, for which he cannot be<\/p>\n
     held responsible. It is further contention of the respondent<\/p>\n
     that   the   petitioners     are    trying          to    take       disadvantage         of<\/p>\n
     their own wrong and by imposing a kind of punishment on the<\/p>\n
     respondent,    by    treating     the        said    period          of    16.5.1998      to<\/p>\n
     21.9.1999 without salary and allowances, which is arbitrary<\/p>\n
     and erroneous.        Hence, respondent made representations to<\/p>\n
     the petitioners from 15.10.1999 to 16.2.2000, pointing out<\/p>\n
     arbitrary    action   of    the    petitioners,                 and       requested      for<\/p>\n
     grant of pension.         Accordingly, provisional pension of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     500\/= per month was granted to Respondent from 21.9.1999 to<\/p>\n
     January 2000, but thereafter no                pension was granted to him.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover, although pension              papers of             the respondent             were<\/p>\n
     sent to the Accountant General in October 1999, same were<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     sent back to the petitioners, as the petitioners had not<\/p>\n
     taken   final     decision      about      the    suspension        period      of   the<\/p>\n
     respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
     04.           Hence,     the    respondent         herein      approached            the<\/p>\n
     learned MAT, by filing Original Application No.776 of 2000<\/p>\n
     and prayed that the impugned order dated 21.9.1999 passed by<\/p>\n
     Respondent       No.2    treating       the       period     of      16.5.1998        to<\/p>\n
     21.9.1999 as leave without salary and allowances, be quashed<\/p>\n
     and    set   aside,
\n                         ig  and    he   also       prayed   that<\/p>\n
     herein be directed to pay salary and allowances for the said
\n                                                                       the    petitioners<\/p>\n
     period to him, along with interest thereon, by treating the<\/p>\n
     said    period    of    16.5.1998       to      21.9.1999      as    a    retirement<\/p>\n
     period.\n<\/p>\n
     05.           After      scrutiny       of       record      and         also    after<\/p>\n
     considering rival submissions advanced by learned counsel<\/p>\n
     for the respective parties, learned MAT allowed the said<\/p>\n
     Original Application No.776 of 2000, by judgment and order<\/p>\n
     dated 11.4.2001, and declared that the present respondent-\n<\/p>\n
     original applicant shall be deemed to have retired from the<\/p>\n
     service with effect from 16.5.1998, and the impugned order<\/p>\n
     dated     21.9.1999 treating the period 16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999<\/p>\n
     as leave without pay, was quashed and set aside, and it was<\/p>\n
     directed that the respondent herein shall be entitled to<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
     pension for the said period, and it was further directed<\/p>\n
     that   Petitioner         No.2    shall     determine       the      period       of<\/p>\n
     suspension    of    the     respondent      herein    from       14.5.1992        to<\/p>\n
     25.1.1995 within a period of one month from the date of<\/p>\n
     receipt of copy of the said order of the MAT, to enable the<\/p>\n
     Accountant General to            finalize pension       of the        respondent<\/p>\n
     herein. Learned MAT also directed that if pension of the<\/p>\n
     respondent herein is not finalized within the period of four<\/p>\n
     months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order,<\/p>\n
     the amount payable to the respondent towards pension shall<\/p>\n
     carry interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date it<\/p>\n
     became due, till the date on which it would be actually paid<\/p>\n
     to the respondent herein.            Being aggrieved and dissatisfied<\/p>\n
     by the said judgment and order of the learned MAT,                           dated<\/p>\n
     11.4.2001    in    Original       Application    No.776        of    2000,       the<\/p>\n
     original respondents-authorities have preferred present writ<\/p>\n
     petition, praying for quashment thereof.\n<\/p>\n
     06.          We    have    perused    the    contents       of      the   present<\/p>\n
     petition,    its    annexures,       impugned   order       dated      11.4.2001<\/p>\n
     delivered by learned MAT in Original Application No.776 of<\/p>\n
     2000, and also considered the submissions advanced by the<\/p>\n
     learned counsel for the parties, anxiously.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
     07.             It was canvassed by learned A.G.P. Shri Ghatge<\/p>\n
     for the petitioners that the learned MAT, in clear terms,<\/p>\n
     observed that the respondent herein did not attend the duty<\/p>\n
     after 16.5.1998, and further observed that it did not find<\/p>\n
     any justice in ordering that the respondent’s services from<\/p>\n
     16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999 should be treated as leave without<\/p>\n
     pay and hence, when the learned MAT admitted the fact that<\/p>\n
     after     16.5.1998,      respondent              herein     did     not      attend       his<\/p>\n
     duties, merely forwarding representations to the authorities<\/p>\n
     would<\/p>\n
     period
\n              not<\/p>\n
               for
\n                     entitle<\/p>\n
                      which
\n                            ig he
\n                                  him<\/p>\n
                                     did
\n                                         to    claim<\/p>\n
                                              not      attend
\n                                                             salary<\/p>\n
                                                                   his
\n                                                                         benefits<\/p>\n
                                                                          duties.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        for<\/p>\n
                                                                                           It
\n                                                                                                the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 is<\/p>\n
     further    canvased       by    learned           A.G.P.     Shri     Ghatge       for     the<\/p>\n
     petitioners that          the learned MAT overlooked the fact that<\/p>\n
     the Commandant, S.R.P.F., Group VI, Dhule, was the competent<\/p>\n
     authority       to     decide      the        voluntary         retirement          of     the<\/p>\n
     respondent herein.             However, in stead of approaching the<\/p>\n
     said    competent      and     appropriate          authority,          the    respondent<\/p>\n
     herein     approached          directly            to     the      Chief       Secretary,<\/p>\n
     Government       of    Maharashtra,           and       requested        for     voluntary<\/p>\n
     retirement.       It     is,    therefore,              submitted       that      had      the<\/p>\n
     respondent       approached             the    competent         authority,         namely,<\/p>\n
     Commandant, S.R.P.F., Group VI, Dhule, the said authority<\/p>\n
     would have taken decision on request of the respondent for<\/p>\n
     voluntary retirement.              It     is accordingly              submitted          that<\/p>\n
     the      respondent          herein           chose          wrong         forum           and<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
     as such, it was the fault of the respondent in choosing the<\/p>\n
     forum, but the learned MAT overlooked the said fact and the<\/p>\n
     fault of the respondent and hence,                      it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
     there was delay caused by the authorities in considering the<\/p>\n
     request     of    the     respondent          for        voluntary          retirement.\n<\/p>\n
     According to the learned A.G.P. Shri Ghatge, learned MAT<\/p>\n
     also    overlooked      the    fact    that       the     authorities          tried      to<\/p>\n
     consider the representations of the respondent herein                                     as<\/p>\n
     early as possible and, therefore, the observations made by<\/p>\n
     the learned MAT in respect of inaction on the part of the<\/p>\n
     petitioners-authorities,          are unwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
     08.          As    regards      the    suspension            of     the     respondent,<\/p>\n
     which was revoked by order dated 25.1.1995, learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri    Ghatge    for    the    petitioners,             submitted             that      the<\/p>\n
     respondent       was    reinstated,         but     the       decision         regarding<\/p>\n
     suspension period was to be taken after the decision of the<\/p>\n
     court     case,    as     per    the     Government               Resolution          dated<\/p>\n
     24.12.1987 and the relevant provisions under the MCS Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned A.G.P. Shri Ghatge also submitted that                                       the<\/p>\n
     learned MAT has overlooked the fact that the criminal case<\/p>\n
     lodged against the respondent herein is still pending before<\/p>\n
     the    Special    Court,      Dhule    and,       therefore,           the     competent<\/p>\n
     authority cannot take decision regarding suspension period<\/p>\n
     till the said criminal case is concluded and decided and,<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
     accordingly, learned A.G.P. urged that the impugned order<\/p>\n
     dated    11.4.2001       passed      by    the   learned        MAT,    in     Original<\/p>\n
     Application        No.776 of 2000,          be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     09.           Shri       N.B.Suryawanshi,          learned      counsel        for     the<\/p>\n
     respondent-original applicant, opposed the present petition<\/p>\n
     and countered the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
     for the petitioners, and submitted that indisputably, the<\/p>\n
     respondent herein sent notice for voluntary retirement, on<\/p>\n
     directly,     but<\/p>\n
     16.7.1997 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra,<\/p>\n
                           that     does       not    make     the    notice        illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover,     it    is    also    submitted        that     merely      because        the<\/p>\n
     notice was not addressed to the immediate authority, that by<\/p>\n
     itself does not mean that the notice is illegal.                                   It is<\/p>\n
     further submitted that it has to be noted that ultimately,<\/p>\n
     on 23.3.1999, the State Government has directed Petitioner<\/p>\n
     No.2    to   accept      the   notice      dated    16.7.1997          given     by    the<\/p>\n
     respondent      herein,        for        voluntary       retirement,          and      no<\/p>\n
     objection was taken to the same, nor it was stated that the<\/p>\n
     notice was bad-in-law, because it was directly addressed to<\/p>\n
     the Chief Secretary of the State. Hence, it is submitted by<\/p>\n
     the learned counsel for the respondent herein that there is<\/p>\n
     no justification for such prolonged delay in accepting the<\/p>\n
     notice sent by the respondent herein on 16.7.1997, since it<\/p>\n
     was accepted in March 1999.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.           Shri   N.B.Suryawanshi,     learned     Counsel        for     the<\/p>\n
     respondent further submitted that since the respondent has<\/p>\n
     actually put in service till 16.5.1998, he was entitled to<\/p>\n
     all   salary   and   allowances    till   that    day.        It     is    also<\/p>\n
     submitted that the petitioners-authorities have accepted the<\/p>\n
     notice of voluntary retirement, after expiry of more than<\/p>\n
     two   years    and   the   fault   wholly    lies      with      them      and,<\/p>\n
     therefore, the respondent was entitled to invoke provisions<\/p>\n
     of Rule 66(2) of the MCS (Pension) Rules, for seeking deemed<\/p>\n
     date of voluntary retirement, since nothing was communicated<\/p>\n
     by the petitioners to him, in time after three months from<\/p>\n
     the date of sending such notice of voluntary retirement,<\/p>\n
     and it is further submitted that there was nothing wrong on<\/p>\n
     the part of the respondent in not attending the duty after<\/p>\n
     16.5.1998.     It is further canvassed by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
     the respondent that the appropriate way for the petitioners<\/p>\n
     was to hold that the respondent was deemed to have retired<\/p>\n
     on 16.5.1998, and the action of the petitioners in treating<\/p>\n
     the period of 16.5.1998 to 21.9.1999 as leave without pay,<\/p>\n
     is totally unjust       and inequitable,     particularly when               the<\/p>\n
     petitioners themselves claim to have accepted the notice of<\/p>\n
     voluntary retirement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
     11.           As regards the suspension, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
     the    respondent      submitted       that        since      the     respondent          was<\/p>\n
     permitted to retire in response to his notice for voluntary<\/p>\n
     retirement, it would not have been proper on the part of the<\/p>\n
     petitioners-authorities to decline to decide the period of<\/p>\n
     suspension, on the ground that though the said suspension<\/p>\n
     was revoked long back, the criminal case which was the basis<\/p>\n
     of ordering said suspension, is not yet over, and nothing<\/p>\n
     prohibits     the     petitioners       to        treat      the     said     period       of<\/p>\n
     suspension, appropriately. In the said context, it is also<\/p>\n
     submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that if at<\/p>\n
     all the respondent is found guilty in the criminal case,<\/p>\n
     any permissible action would follow for reducing the amount<\/p>\n
     of his pension, in accordance with the relevant rules. It<\/p>\n
     is, therefore,        further submitted that it was not necessary<\/p>\n
     to postpone the decision on suspension period, particularly<\/p>\n
     when    the    suspension        was        revoked        by      the     petitioners-\n<\/p>\n
     authorities        themselves,     long          back,    and      since     not     taking<\/p>\n
     decision      on    the   period       of        suspension        would      amount       to<\/p>\n
     indefinite postponement of finalization of the pension of<\/p>\n
     the respondent, as the Accountant General has invoked the<\/p>\n
     concerned rule to deny finalization of the pension of the<\/p>\n
     respondent. Moreover, Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, learned counsel<\/p>\n
     for the respondent, submitted that provisional pension was<\/p>\n
     given to the respondent for a particular period, but same<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
     was also stopped and hence, he submitted that the learned<\/p>\n
     MAT rightly issued            necessary directions           in that         respect.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent urged that<\/p>\n
     the   judgment         and   order   dated      11.4.2001    delivered         by    the<\/p>\n
     learned MAT in Original Application No. 776 of 2000, is just<\/p>\n
     and proper and no interference therein is warranted.\n<\/p>\n
     12.           After considering the rival submissions advanced<\/p>\n
     by    the    learned         counsel      for     the    respective          parties,<\/p>\n
     anxiously, we are of the considered view that merely because<\/p>\n
     the notice of voluntary retirement dated 16.7.1997 given by<\/p>\n
     the respondent herein was not addressed to the immediate<\/p>\n
     authority, but was sent to the Chief Secretary, Government<\/p>\n
     of Maharashtra, directly, by itself does not mean that the<\/p>\n
     said notice can be construed as illegal.                       Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
     finding given by the learned MAT in respect of addressing<\/p>\n
     the said notice dated 16.7.1997 by respondent herein, of his<\/p>\n
     voluntary retirement directly to the Chief Secretary of the<\/p>\n
     State, cannot be faulted with, and merely because the said<\/p>\n
     notice      was        not   addressed       to    the     immediate         superior<\/p>\n
     authority,        it cannot be construed that the said notice is<\/p>\n
     illegal, particularly when the State Government had given<\/p>\n
     directions        on    23.3.1999    to   accept     the    said     notice      dated<\/p>\n
     16.7.1997, and more so when no objection was taken to the<\/p>\n
     notice, by saying that it was bad-in-law, because it was<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
     addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State, directly.\n<\/p>\n
     13.            Moreover,      there       is   substance         in     the     argument<\/p>\n
     canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent that the<\/p>\n
     petitioners-authorities            neither      communicated           nor      took    any<\/p>\n
     decision on representations of the respondent for voluntary<\/p>\n
     retirement for substantial period, for which the respondent<\/p>\n
     cannot   be     held       responsible         and     there       cannot        be     any<\/p>\n
     justification        for    such     prolonged       delay      in    accepting         the<\/p>\n
     notice sent by the respondent herein on 16.7.1997, since it<\/p>\n
     was accepted in March 1999, and the petitioners cannot take<\/p>\n
     disadvantage        of    their    own    wrong,     by     imposing        a   kind     of<\/p>\n
     punishment on the respondent, by treating the period from<\/p>\n
     16.5.1998      to        21.9.1999       as    leave      without         salary        and<\/p>\n
     allowances.         Accordingly, as regards the said period from<\/p>\n
     16.5.1998 to 21.9.1990, the reasoning adopted by learned MAT<\/p>\n
     that the respondent herein was entitled to invoke provisions<\/p>\n
     of Rule 66(2) of the MICS (Pension) Rules and could have<\/p>\n
     sought deemed date of retirement, in the absence of any<\/p>\n
     communication by the State Government, in time after expiry<\/p>\n
     of three months from the date of sending such notice, cannot<\/p>\n
     be faulted with. Moreover, the observations of the learned<\/p>\n
     MAT that the action of the petitioners herein in treating<\/p>\n
     the   period    from       16.5.1998      to   21.9.1999        as    leave      without<\/p>\n
     salary is totally unjust and inequitable, particularly when<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
     the petitioners themselves claim to have accepted the notice<\/p>\n
     of voluntary retirement, also appears to be proper, since<\/p>\n
     the respondent could not have been forced to work against<\/p>\n
     his wish, more particularly when, under the relevant rules,<\/p>\n
     he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement.                           Moreover, the<\/p>\n
     view   adopted      by     the   learned         MAT    that    it    was     proper      to<\/p>\n
     declare      that    the     respondent          herein       stood     retired        from<\/p>\n
     service from 16.5.1998 and was entitled to pension from that<\/p>\n
     date, by quashing and setting aside the petitioners’ order<\/p>\n
     dated 21.9.1999 treating the said period from 16.5.1998 to<\/p>\n
     21.9.1999 as leave without pay or salary is unsustainable,<\/p>\n
     also appears to be proper and legal.\n<\/p>\n
     14.           Besides       that,      we    are       in    agreement         with      the<\/p>\n
     observations made and finding recorded by the learned MAT,<\/p>\n
     regarding the aspect of suspension of the respondent and<\/p>\n
     same cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p>\n
     15.           In the circumstances, having comprehensive view<\/p>\n
     of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the submissions<\/p>\n
     advanced      by     the    learned         A.G.P.       Shri      Ghatge       for      the<\/p>\n
     petitioners, and we are of the considered view that this is<\/p>\n
     not    the     fit       case     to    exercise             extra-ordinary            writ<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction        to     interfere        in    the       impugned      order       dated<\/p>\n
     11.4.2001 rendered by the learned MAT in                        O.A. No. 776\/2000.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>
\n                                          15<\/span><\/p>\n
     16.   In the result, present petition bears no substance and<\/p>\n
     same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands<\/p>\n
     dismissed.      However, we make it clear that the aforesaid<\/p>\n
     observations     and    finding    be     treated     as    per      incuriam,<\/p>\n
     considering    the     peculiar   facts    and   circumstances          of     the<\/p>\n
     present case.\n<\/p>\n
     17.   Rule stands discharged. In the facts and circumstances,<\/p>\n
     there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)                            (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)<\/p>\n
     pnd\/wp5337.01<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:38 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5337 OF 2001 01. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 02. The Commandant, S.R.P.F Group-VI, Dhule, District Dhule. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2841,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":2841,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-09T15:37:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-yuvraj-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Yuvraj on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}