SAHADEV RAMA GADLING vs THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

909.WP.13846.2016.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13846 OF 2016 Sahadev Rama Gadling, Age 64 years, R/o.409, Ayoudhya Nagar, Opp.Citiric Company, Jail Road, post Panchak, Nashik Road-422101. Petitioner versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. The Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Deolali Cantonment, Deolali-422401. Respondents _______ Mr.A.S.Rao i/by Mr.Surendra Prakash Saxena for Petitioner. Mr.P.M.Palshikar with Mr.Ashok R. Varma for Respondent UOI. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 7th November 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (G.S.Kulkarni, J.) :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties Heard finally. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the denial of pension to the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has not completed ten years of continuous service, on account of the period of suspension undergone by the Petitioner, which was with effect from 2 nd June 2005 to 4th Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE THATTE Date: 2025.11.14 16:31:29 +0530 January 2005 being a period of about 7 months and 2 days. The Petitioner has contended that such period of suspension was required to be reckoned to consider Page 1 of 11 Manish Thatte 909.WP.13846.2016.DOC the Petitioner eligible for grant of pension in view of specific provisions of Rule 23 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (`CCS Pension Rules) read with clarificatory Office Memorandum No.F 11(3)-E.V (A)76, dated 28 th February 1976. This inasmuch as no specific order was passed to that as period of suspension be excluded from the qualifying service. Hence it was deemed that th