AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil B. Shukre, J
1] Heard.
2] We find that pension case of the petitioner could not be processed and decided appropriately by respondent No.2 only because some of the objections raised by him in respect of the pension proposal were not answered or complied with by respondent No.4.
3] Unless and until these objections are properly answered and complied with by respondent No. 4, respondent No. 2 would not be in a position to decide the pension case of the petitioner appropriately.
4] Prima facie, we find that the impediments faced by the petitioner in receiving pension can be removed by recovery of salary paid to the petitioner for the month of November 1977 and informing respondent No.2 the provision of law appearing in note below Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981 which reads as follows:-
“The leave granted as leave preparatory to retirement shall not include extra-ordinary leave.”
5] Accordingly, we partly allow the petition and direct the respondent No.4 to prepare a fresh pension proposal of the petitioner complying with all the objections taken by respondent No.2 in the light of the above referred observations and send it to respondent No. 2 for its fresh consideration and approval by respondent No.2 within a period of three months from the date of the order. We further direct respondent No. 2 to decide the pension case of the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal. The copy of the pension proposal shall be forwarded to the petitioner.
6] Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.