Oral Judgment:

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of parties.

2. The Petition is directed against the orders dated 16th September 2011 issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the order/letter dated 15th December 2014 issued by the Division Commissioner (Development), Pune Division, Pune. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner joined the service of the Zilla Parishad, Solapur as ‘Junior Assistant’ in the year 1970. There were certain enquiry proceedings initiated against the Petitioner and ultimately on 12th February 1988, the services were terminated. The Petitioner challenged his termination by filing Complaint (ULP) No.32 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Solapur. On 4th May 1998, the Complaint (ULP) No.32 of 1988 filed before the Labour Court, Solapur by the Petitioner was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back-wages. The Zilla Parishad, Solapur- Respondent No.3 filed a Revision (ULP) No.32 of 1988 before the Industrial Court, which was dismissed by a reasoned order. The Respondent No.3, therefore, filed Writ Petition No.2220 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court. Pending the hearing of the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner retired from his service on 30th April 2007. It is contended by the Petitioner that the Respondent No.3 asked the Petitioner to execute a bond, accordingly, a bond was executed by the Petitioner, which is at record page No.12 of the Writ Petition. The Clause Nos.3 and 4 of the bond state that the Petitioner would not claim back-wages during the period till which his services are reinstated. The Petitioner also agreed that he would be governed by any decision which would be taken by Zilla Parishad regarding the reinstatement in service. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2220 of 2004, i.e., Respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad did not press for petition in light of the bond and accordingly, the Petition was disposed of. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the Judgment and Order dated 4th May 1998 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.32 of 1988, thus, attained finality.

3. The Petitioner was, in fact, reinstated and vide order dated 9th February 2009, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur passed an order thereby reinstating the Petitioner in service. Vide a letter dated 30th March 2009, it was clarified by the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Solapur that the period of 13th February 1988 to 18th May 2004 by which he was taken up service would be counted as ‘Continued Services’. Thereafter, the Petitioner prayed for pensionary benefits. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Thokade appearing for the Petitioner states, on instructions, that the Petitioner is not claiming any back-wages and is restricting his claim only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Vide order dated 15th December 2014, the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune had rejected the application of the Petitioner for pensionary benefits.

4. Mr. Thokade, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the bond, which was executed by him on 11th May 2004 would not amount to deprive the Petitioner of the pensionary benefits. He submits that once the order dated 30th March 2009 was passed by the CEO, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and which is not challenged by the Respondent No.3, he would be entitled for the pensionary benefits.

5. Mr. Talekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, Solapur has contended that there cannot be estoppel against law. He relied on Rule 44 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (‘the Pension Rules’). He stated that Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 44 of the Pension Rules only provides for counting of past service on reinstatement. He laid more emphasis on Rule 48 of the Pension Rules and contended that as per Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48 of the Pension Rules assuming the interruption is condoned, it shall not count as ‘Qualifying Services’. He submitted that the Petitioner has not worked from 13th February 1988 to 18th May 2004 and is not entitled for the pensionary benefits. It is the contention of Mr. Talekar that the bond was not filed at the instance of Respondent No.3, but it was filed by the Petitioner voluntarily.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we are of the considered view that the Judgment and Order dated 4th May 1998 passed by the learned Labour Court, Solapur, whereby the Petitioner was directed to be reinstated with full back-wages is not set aside, modified or reversed by any subsequent order. We are, therefore, of the confirmed opinion that said Judgment and Order would hold the field. It is settled position of law that any order till it is modified, reversed or set aside by a Competent Court is binding. We are fortifying our contention by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Kandla v. Hargovind Jaisraj & Anr.(2013 (3) SCC 182.) The Judgment and Order passed by the Labour Court is not set aside by any Competent Court. The decision in Writ Petition No.2220 of 2004 is that the Court has disposed of the Writ Petition. This Court has not set aside the order passed by the Labour Court. It was the duty of the Respondent No.3 to get the said order set aside and/or get the authoritative pronouncement. Failure to do so would not act in benefit of the Zilla Parishad. Once the order is passed on 30th March 2009, whereby it is held that the period from 13th February 1988 to 18th May 2004 shall be held for the purpose of ‘Continuity in Service’, there remains no merit in the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 that this period should be counted only for the purpose of ‘Qualifying Service’ and not for the purpose of pensionary benefits. As a matter of fact, the Petitioner as on today vide a judicial pronouncement of the Labour Court is entitled for the pensionary benefits as well as the back-wages. However, Mr. Thokade, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, on instructions, stated that he is not claiming the back-wages at all. The contention of Mr. Talekar that Rule 48 of the Pension Rules is applicable is totally uncalled for. In fact, even in the impugned orders it is clearly mentioned that they are passed under Rule 44(2) of the Pension Rules. As such, the Petitioner was unduly deprived of the benefits for such a long period. We, therefore, allow the petition and pass the following order.

                   ORDER

                   i) The Order/letter dated 16th September 2011 issued by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Solapur and the order/letter dated 15th December 2014 issued by the Division Commissioner (Development), Pune Division, Pune are hereby quashed and set aside, as we held that the Petitioner is entitled for the pension while treating the pension period from 13th February 1988 to 18th May 2004.

                   ii) With this, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

                   iii) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

7. Mr. Talekar, at this juncture, prays for stay of this order. However, since we have passed a detailed reasoned order, we refused to grant stay to this order.

8. Before departing we hereby mention that there was an order dated 5th May 2026 passed by this Court making certain observations against the then Panel Advocate of the Zilla Parishad-Respondent No.3. We are satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Advocate and, hence, we do not propose to take any further steps regarding the same.