wp5157.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5157/2005
PETITIONER: Dr. Suresh Janardhan Gaikwad
aged about 60 yrs., Occ. Retired,
r/o Ambedkar Nagar, Dharampeth, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi
ig Vidyapith, Krushi Nagar, Akola,
through its Registrar, Office at Krushi Nagar,
Akola.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. U.A. Patil, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 26.10.2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner had sought a direction against the respondent - University to fix the pension of the petitioner and to release the pension, gratuity, commutation and G.P.F. amount with interest.
The petitioner was working as an Associate Dean with the respondent - University when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2004. Though the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2004, he was continued in ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:55:40 ::: wp5157.05.odt 2 service till 31.1.2005 and was relieved on that day. The Chancellor of the respondent - University had asked the Controller of the respondent -
University to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had ceased to work after 31.1.2005, the petitioner was not paid the retiral benefits till he filed the writ petition on 5.10.2005.
We had issued notice to the respondent after filing of the petition. This Court has observed in the order, dated 9.1.2006 that the petitioner had received all his retiral dues including the pension, gratuity, commutation and G.P.F. and the grievance of the petitioner in that regard stood redressed. The writ petition could have been disposed of in view of the payment of the aforesaid dues, but since the petitioner had claimed interest in view of the delay in payment of retiral dues, we had issued Rule.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent and on a perusal of the documents annexed to the petition, it appears that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner would not be entitled to seek interest on the retiral dues. The petitioner stood retired on 31.1.2005 and the proposal in regard to the extension of the age of retirement of the petitioner was pending before the State Government. Since the proposal was pending till 20.5.2005, the respondent - University was not able to ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:55:40 ::: wp5157.05.odt 3 process the claim of the petitioner for pension. Since the respondent received the information about the rejection of the proposal pertaining to the extension of the age of retirement of the petitioner, the respondent -
University processed the pension case of the petitioner and took further steps to clear the pensionary and other retiral dues of the petitioner. We find that most of the dues of the petitioner were paid till October, 2005. If that be so, it cannot be said that there was considerable delay on the part of the respondent in making the payment of the retiral dues and that the respondent had not taken speedy action in the matter of releasing of the retiral dues to the petitioner. Since all the retiral dues were already paid and the matter pertains only to the payment of the interest on the small delay in paying the retiral dues, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Hence, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:55:40 :::