Krishnakumar Vitthalsingh Pardeshi vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

JUDGMENT (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)

By this petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondents to decide his representation dated 05^th June 2025, expeditiously. By way of the representation, the Petitioner had sought an early decision on his pensionary claim, as his claim remained undecided on account of a belated objection raised by the Respondents of the Petitioner not having undergone a mandatory Marathi Language Examination as per the terms of the service.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Pharmacist (Class – III) on 8^th January 1993, in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane (CEO -Thane). Thereafter, he was transferred to Zilla Parishad – Palghar. The Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra; the Respondent No.2 is the District Health Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Palghar; the Respondent No.3 is the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Palghar; and Respondent No.4 is the CEO of Palghar Zilla Parishad.

The Petitioner was promoted to the post of Pharmacy Officer and by order dated 4^th December 2006 was declared as quasi permanent. He superannuated on 31^st July 2023.

Marathi Language Examination Rules of 1987 were issued by the General Administration Department (GAD). Rule 3 of the said rules requires a Government Servant to pass an examination of proficiency in Marathi language, within two years from the date of their appointment. Rule 4 provides for an exemption from passing the said exam, subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. By notification dated 7^th February 2001 of the GAD, Rule 4 was amended and the amended Rule added an exemption that a person who claims Marathi to be his mother tongue is exempt from passing the said exam subject to satisfaction of the following conditions:

The Government Resolution dated 20^th May 2003, issued by the General Administration Department further exempted candidates who retired during 1^st January 1996, and 30^th April 2003 from fulfilling the conditions of the said Rules.

The Petitioner having served for as many as 30 years, superannuated on 31^st July 2023. While fixing his retiral benefits, the Respondent No.2 raised a query regarding the Petitioner not having passed / appeared for the Marathi Language Exam. There is correspondence between the Respondents inter se in this regard and finally the Respondent No.1 directed the Competent Authority to decide upon the issue regarding the Petitioner not having appeared / passed in the Marathi Language Exam in terms of the relevant Rules of the Government Resolution dated 8^th May 2003. The fixation of pensionary benefits to the Petitioner depended upon the decision regarding relaxation of the Rule mandating passing of the Marathi Language Exam. The Petitioner had also made a representation to the Respondents to fix his pension and to decide the issue regarding non-appearance / non-passing in the Marathi Language Exam. The representation is still pending decision. Thus, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondents in deciding his representation, the Petitioner has filed the present petition for the reliefs as prayed.

While granting time to the Respondents to file their reply, this Court by order dated 19^th August 2025, directed the Respondent No.4 to ensure that the provisional pension to the extent of 90% is paid to the Petitioner. Accordingly, we are told that 90% of his pension is being paid to the Petitioner.

Mr. Pradip Patil, learned Advocate represented Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Ms. M.P. Thakur, learned AGP appeared for the State. We heard the learned Counsel and perused the record with their assistance.

The Petitioner has averred in his petition that he is a resident of Maharashtra and his mother tongue is Marathi. He is well-versed in the language. Since his appointment in 1993, he has performed his duties in Marathi Language and Devenagari script. Till his retirement he was never informed regarding the requirement of passing the Marathi Language Exam. Furthermore, he is entitled to exemption as per the relevant Rules. On these grounds amongst others the Petitioner prays that the petition be allowed.

Mr. Patil and Ms. Thakur submitted that pursuant to Order dated 19^th August 2025, the Petitioner is being paid a provisional pension to the extent of 90% of his total pension. Mr. Patil submitted that the Petitioner has suppressed facts in the petition and hence his petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. He submitted that the Petitioner has not placed on record his appointment letter containing the terms of his appointment. He drew attention to Clause 5 of the terms which provided that the Petitioner shall pass such language and other departmental examinations as may be required by the Government. Hence, according to Mr. Patil, the Petitioner was well aware of the conditions of his appointment. Further, Mr. Patil assailed the very appointment letter of the Petitioner by saying that the same was forged. He further submitted that the Rules are sacrosanct and the Petitioner was required to pass the Marathi Language Exam. Not having done so he is not entitled to his pensionary benefits. In fact, Mr. Patil submitted that the authority to decide the Petitioner’s representation seeking exemption from the said exam is within the purview of the Government and the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have no role in that regard. The Government of Maharashtra – Respondent No.1 has directed the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to decide the Petitioner’s representation as per the relevant Rules and hence, they are contemplating as directed. Thus, Mr. Patil urged the Court to dismiss the petition.

Before we consider the factual matrix involved in the present case, we find it necessary to record our strong disapproval for the inaction of the Respondents in failing to decide the Petitioner’s representation dated 5^th June 2025 within a reasonable period. We further find it ludicrous that no objection was ever raised by the Respondents to the Petitioner for not satisfying the condition of passing the Marathi Language Examination and it is only when the Petitioner superannuated and requested his pensionary benefits, the Respondents found it necessary to raise the issue about the said condition. The stodginess on the part of the Respondents is in fact demonstrated by the fact that despite not passing the Marathi Language examination, the Petitioner was promoted as a Pharmacy Officer and was even made permanent. The Respondent’s belated objection is preposterous and absurd.

We have perused the relevant Rules. The notification dated 7^th February 2001 issued by the GAD reads thus:

It is clear from the terms of the notification that the Rule mandating passing of the Marathi Language Examination has certain exemptions. Admittedly, the Petitioner has served 30 long years in the department and has communicated proficiently in Marathi Language. There is no complaint nor any grievance made by any official on record regarding the Petitioner not being well-versed in Marathi Language. There is no allegation against the Petitioner that he failed to perform and discharge his duties for 30 years, due to his alleged lack of proficiency in Marathi Language. In fact, ironically the detailed representation made by the Petitioner is in the official Marathi Language which demonstrates clearly the Petitioner’s proficiency in the said language. The Petitioner squarely falls within the scope and ambit of the exemptions provided in the relevant Rules themselves. Moreover, the Respondents cannot be permitted to scrutinize the Petitioner’s terms and conditions of service after he has superannuated.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the levity of the Respondents in refusing to settle the Petitioner’s retiral dues is unacceptable and incongruous. Since the Respondents claim to have paid 90% of the total retiral benefits to the Petitioner, pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 19^th August 2025, we direct the Respondents to disburse the balance 10% of the pensionary dues to the Petitioner within a period of 15 days from today along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. In case any other dues remain payable to the Petitioner, the Respondents shall disburse the same also within the stipulated time as prescribed hereinabove along with such interest.

The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.