WRIT PETITION NO.2345 OF 2014 OPS vs DCPS
Held
17. In view of the above, these Petitions are disposed off with the following directions:-
(a) The cases of these Petitioners (working in Junior colleges) including those persons who are represented by a Union or an Action Committee, or those who have not approached the Court, would be placed before the respective Deputy Director of Education of the said Division. In the case of the schools, the proposals would be tendered to the Education Officer, who would transmit them to the Deputy Director of Education. In the case of Junior College Employees, their respective Managements would forward their proposals directly to the Deputy Director of Education.
(b) Let the above exercise be completed by the respective employers within a period of 45 days from the date of the uploading of this final order on the official website of the Bombay High Court. Parties are at liberty
to act on the printout of this final order downloaded from the official website.
(c) After the Deputy Director of Education of the respective regions receive such proposals, a meticulous scrutiny of the records would be carried out with the assistance of the Management. While sending the proposals, the Managements would mention their e-mail addresses on the proposals for easy correspondence so as to enable the Deputy Director of Education to seek clarification or assistance or solicit further information, as the case may be.
(d) All the proposals would be scrutinised, preferably by 30th September, 2025.
(e) The concerned Deputy Director of Education would pass individual orders in the case of each candidate mentioned in the proposal. Those who are already retired would be given a priority and their proposals would be decided first. Those who are close to retirement, their proposals would be taken up thereafter and those who
have a sufficiently long duration for retirement, would be taken up thereafter.
(f) In matters wherein the proposals are negatived, the Deputy Director would assign reasons which would indicate the basis of the rejection. We clarify that his order must clearly indicate the reasons for the refusal of the Old Pension Scheme to a particular candidate.
(g) We make it clear to the Managements of all Schools and Colleges over the State of Maharashtra that they would forward the proposals as directed above, not only with regard to those Petitioners or candidates who were able to reach the Court by filing Petitions, and would include even those candidates who are the employees on its rolls and forward their proposals also to avoid further litigation or inflow of new matters. In short, those candidates who are employees and not before the Court would also be the beneficiaries of this order and the respective employers would also forward their proposal along with proposals of these Petitioners.
(h) Until the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is delivered in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State Government challenging the view taken by the Division Bench in Nilesh Namdev Gurav (supra) and the proceedings initiated by individuals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court [assailing the view taken by the learned Full Bench of this Court in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra)], the Deputy Director of Education would follow the law as is laid down in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra) and Nilesh Namdev Gurav (supra). In the event, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivers an order in Deshmukh Dilipkumar Bhagwan and Others (supra) and/or Nilesh Namdev Gurav (supra), the said Authority would be obliged to follow the view and the directions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme in such judgment.
18. With reference to cases which are favourably decided by the Deputy Director of Education and they are held eligible for the Old Pension Scheme, especially with regard to those who have already superannuated, further steps for submission of their pension papers and their clearance, shall be taken up expeditiously and in such circumstances, the Office of the Accountant General (A.G) would not hold any of such candidates as being ineligible for pension since the Deputy Director having already completed the entire exercise of scrutiny.
19. Needless to state, those aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, would be at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance by availing of a remedy as may be permissible in law.
20. All pending Interim Applications would not survive and stands disposed off.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Views: 1
Leave a Reply