Latest news with #AshwinBhobe
Hindustan Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Dependent parents of deceased govt employee entitled to family pension: HC
MUMBAI: The dependent parents of a deceased, unmarried government employee are entitled to family pension, the Bombay high court has ruled. 'We sincerely believe that if dependent parents have to keep their mind, body and soul together, law must ensure that they receive pension for sustenance,' said a division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe, while directing the Maharashtra government to clear the family pension proposal of a septuagenarian couple from Akola, who lost their son in 2008. In their petition, Vasantrao Deshmukh, 75, and his wife Snehalata, 75, claimed they were denied family pension after their unmarried son died due to a snake bite while working at a tribal school in October 2008. Two years later, in September 2010, the petitioners approached the project officer of the local Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP) for family pension. ITDPs are designated areas where tribal people make up 50% or more of the total population. However, in November 2010, the authorities informed the petitioners that the biological parents of a deceased state government employee are not eligible for family pension. This prompted the couple to approach the high court. The advocates for the petitioners pointed out a government resolution (GR) dated January 22, 2015, issued by the state finance department, which said that family pension should be granted to 'wholly dependent parents of a deceased single government servant'. The state government, however, opposed the petition, contending that the biological parents of a deceased single government employee are not covered under the definition of family under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It added that the January 2015 GR could not be applied retrospectively to the case. After hearing both sides, the bench ruled that the couple was eligible to receive family pension, saying the GR was issued with a laudable objective to achieve social security for helpless aged parents. It added that the GR should be made applicable at least to the dependent parent/s surviving on the date of the GR, even if their single child died prior to its issuance. The court directed the state government to approve the petitioner's proposal, pay the arrears due and start paying them a regular pension from July 2025.
Hindustan Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Central govt staff don't need prior nod to run for and hold office in trade unions: HC
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week struck down an office memorandum issued by the atomic energy department (AED), which required their employees to seek prior permission to contest elections and become office-bearers of trade unions and restricted their tenure to four years. The division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe also clarified that employees of any ministry or department of the cenral government, including the AED, do not require prior permission become office-bearers of any association or trade union whose membership is restricted to employees of the department. 'Under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, employees working in public or private sector undertakings can come together and form a trade employer per se has no role to play with regard to the internal affairs of the trade union,' the division bench said while striking down restrictions imposed by the atomic energy department through an office memorandum dated August 29, 2022. The memorandum restrained central government employees from contesting elections or becoming office-bearers of any body, including trade unions, without prior permission of the government, and restricted their tenure to two terms or five years, whichever is longer. The National Federation of Atomic Energy Employees had challenged the office memorandum in the high court last year. The government opposed the petition, expressing serious concerns about productivity of elected office-bearers and claiming they would develop vested interests, lost interest in their jobs and not perform their duties faithfully. The bench, however, refused to accept the contention. 'In a country which is administered by the rule of democracy and which is recognised to be one of the largest democracies in the world, no employer can be permitted to impose restrictions on the freedom of members of a trade union in either contesting elections or continuing as office-bearers,' the court said. 'These issues are governed only by the Constitution of the trade union which is necessary under the Trade Unions Act, 1926,' said the bench. 'No employer can create such service rules which would create an embargo on the terms and conditions or the clauses of the Constitution of a trade union.'
