AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : Rajnish R. Vyas)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners are legal heirs of late Gajendra Ramdas Bedare, who was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Professor with respondent No. 4 college on 20.8.2000 at which time he had not acquired NET/CET examination. After completion of probation period, his services were continued. Late Gajendra thereafter secured M.Phil degree in 2008 and Ph.D in the year 2014. In May 2001, the respondent No. 5 University had granted onward approval on adhoc basis to late Gajendra subject to conditions laid down in Government Resolution dated 22.12.1995 from academic session 2000-2001. In the month of November, 2008, since no NET/SET qualified candidates were available at the time of interview, the University Grants Commission granted exemption for post graduate and under graduate level teaching in respect of some candidates and name of late Gajendra was also included in the said list, at serial No. 567. On 8.10.2009, respondent No. 5 University granted permanent approval to the lecturers mentioned in the said list and late Gajendra’s name was at serial No. 9. After rendering 24 years of service, unfortunately on 12.12.2024 Gajendra died.
When the petitioners applied for family pension, same was rejected vide communication dated 4.4.2025, on the ground that as per Government Resolution dated 29.10.2021, petitioner No.1’s husband was not qualified since he had not acquired NET/SET examination. The challenge is to the said action of the respondents. It needs no detailed discussion since issue involved in this petition is already decided in several proceedings including Writ Petition 10170/2021 (Gangasagar w/o Umrao Kawale and ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), decided by Bench at Aurangabad, dated 5.2.2024 and Writ Petition No. 637/2022 (Shri Pradip Nilkanthrao Dhote Vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 13.11.2024 by this Court. While deciding Writ Petition 10170/2021, the Court had observed as under:
“6.At the outset we would like to say that the decisions which have been relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner contended different set of facts. In those petitions the appointment of the petitioners therein was prior to 23rd October 1992 and therefore, it was held that they were covered by University Grants Commission Resolution dated 19th September 1991 which came to be implemented in the State on 30th October 1992. Here the facts are already stated, however to recapture, it can be said that the appointment of the deceased was on 9th March 2002. The approval was granted by the University on 24th August 2006 which was subject to passing of NET / SET Examination and it was temporary approval. The deceased completed his M.Phil on 3rd August 2009 and he was awarded Ph.D. on 14th October 2017. Thereafter the institute wherein the deceased was serving i.e. respondent No.6 had forwarded proposal to grant permanency to the deceased, which came to be approved by the University on 13th December 2017. Entry was taken in his service book to that effect. Now, it is to be noted that there is a presumption that when University grants approval to the permanency then it has considered all the requirements / rules / regulations. The said approval granted by the University was never challenged by anybody. Unfortunately, the deceased expired on 26th May 2021. Now the petitioners cannot be asked to answer the deficiencies.
In view of aforesaid discussion and since the petition involves identical issue, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses A and B.
Rule made absolute in the above terms.