26 WP No.6218.2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6218 OF 2015 ASHOK LAXMAN DHIRDE VERSUS AHMEDNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AHMEDNAGAR *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Parag V. Barde Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Vinayak S. Bedre *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 27th July, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 23.01.2015 rendered by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007, dismissing the petitioner's complaint, denying the claim for pensionary and service benefits by counting permanency from July 1974 instead of 10.04.1978. 2. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent Corporation as a temporary clerk. The service conditions of the employees working under the respondent are governed by the awards, agreements, and settlements between the recognized Union and the management from time to time. In Reference (IT) 2026:BHC-AUG:33500 26 WP No.6218.2015 -2- No. 431/1969, an award was passed by the learned Industrial Court and published in the Government Gazette on 13.02.1970, which entails any temporary employee upon completion of continuous service of 180 days in the preceding year must be considered a deemed permanent employee. 3. Following the appointment, the petitioner completed the required 180 days of continuous service so as to become a permanent employee in the month of July 1974. The respondent, however, conferred the actual benefits of permanency to the petitioner on 10.04.1978. The petitioner continued to serve the respondent - Corporation and ultimately retired from services upon superannuation on 01.06.2007. At the time of his retirement, the respondent computed and disbursed retiral and pensionary benefits by treating his date of initial permanent appointment as 10.04.1978, ignoring the previous service rendered from July 1974 as a deemed permanent employee. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007 before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar on 01.09.2007. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint on 09.04.2013. This Court, however, in Writ Petition No. 26 WP No.6218.2015 -3- 6694/2013, set aside the dismissal by its judgment dated 10.02.2014 and remanded the matter back for an afresh consideration on merits. 5. Following the remand, the Industrial Court, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court. 6. Mr. Barde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Court committed error while misinterpreting the evidence and the applicable statutory provisions. The industrial award obligates to confer permanency upon the completion of 180 days of continuous service, which cannot be deferred or defeated by the respondent. The finding of the Trial Court in relation to the lack of continuous service is contrary to the record. As such, prayed to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. Bedre, the learned counsel for the respondent - Municipal Corporation supported the order under challenge submitting that the petitioner cannot claim the status of permanency right after the completion of 180 days in absence of order of confirmation. The respondent submits that the petitioner accepted the permanency date of 10.04.1978 till retirement 26 WP No.6218.2015 -4- without raising protest. It is, therefore, submitted that the complaint presented in the year 2007, challenging an arrangement that was accepted is delayed one and the Industrial Court was justified in dismissing the complaint. 8. Upon considering the submissions of litigating sides and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the language employed in the award in Reference is once a temporary employee completes 180 days of continuous service, the status of a deemed permanent employee is conferred by operation of law. The respondent, being a “state instrumentality” under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily to postpone these benefits to 10.04.1978 without any justification contrary to industrial award. The finding of the Industrial Court that the petitioner failed to prove continuous service is perverse, since the petitioner’s unblemished service record from the year 1974 onwards remains unchallenged. 9. It is a settled principle that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace; it is a right earned by long and dedicated service. The wrong calculation and short-payment of pension occur on the first of every month, giving rise to a continuous and recurring cause of action. 10. The petitioner was directly impacted by the incorrect 26 WP No.6218.2015 -5- calculation of his qualifying service when he retired on 01.06.2007. That employee would be entitled to the dues as claimed from the ate of entitlement, therefore, dismissing a legitimate retiral claim purely on technicalities results in to failure of justice. 11. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. In the view of the aforesaid findings, the present Writ Petition is allowed. 13. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2015 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 68/2007 is quashed and set aside. 14. The respondent Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation shall calculate the petitioner’s qualifying service, retiral benefits, and pension treating date of permanency as 01.07.1974 and confer the differential amount and arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing which, it shall incur an interest @ 6% pa for delayed period. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi