Mohd. Riyazuddin S/O Mohd. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ...

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1546 Bom
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
Mohd. Riyazuddin S/O Mohd. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 7 April, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
 07.04.WP3594.13-Judgment                                                                         1/4


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                     WRIT PETITION NO.   3594   OF    2013



 PETITIONER :-                        Mohd.   Riyazuddin   S/o   Mohd.   Bashiruddin
                                      Taher, Aged about 63 years, Occu:. Retired,
                                      R/o.   Kagzipura,   Ward   No.12,   Balapur,   Tq.
                                      Balapur, Distt. Akola. 

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1.  State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
                                     Ministry   of   Municipal   Administration,
                                     Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

                                 2. Director   of   Municipal   Administration,   GTS
                                    Building, 3rd Floor, Sir, Pochkhanwala Road,
                                    Worli, Mumbai-400030. 

                                 3. Collector, Akola, Tah. & Distt. Akola.                     

                                 4. Municipal Council, Balapur through its Chief
                                    Officer, Balapur, Tq. Balapur, Distt. Akola. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr.D.R.Khapre, counsel for the petitioner.
     Ms N.P.Mehta, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
                             None for the respondent No.2. 
           Mr.A.J.Tople, counsel h/f Mr. S.D.Chopde, counsel for the
                                      respondent No.4. 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 07.04.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:30:40 ::: 07.04.WP3594.13-Judgment 2/4 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondent-Municipal Council to pay the retiral benefits pertaining to gratuity, salary, difference of pension, leave encashment, etc. along with interest to the petitioner.

2. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, all the benefits that were due and payable to the petitioner were paid to the petitioner, except the amount payable to him towards leave encashment. The petitioner has therefore sought a direction against the Municipal Council to pay the amount due and payable to the petitioner towards leave encashment and also to pay interest on the delayed payment of the benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Council states that due to the extreme poor financial condition of the Municipal Council, the Council was not in a position to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner immediately after his retirement. It is stated that the regular salary of the employees that are in service of the Municipal Council is also not paid regularly due to the financial crunch faced by the respondent-Municipal Council. It is submitted that the leave encashment benefit is not granted to any employee of the ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:30:40 ::: 07.04.WP3594.13-Judgment 3/4 Municipal Council and hence the petitioner would also not be entitled to the same.

4. We find from the communication annexed to the petition that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of leave encashment. Merely because the respondent-Municipal Council may not have granted the said benefit to the other employees, it cannot be said that the petitioner would also not be entitled to the same, specially when the respondent-Municipal Council does not dispute that it would be binding on the Municipal Council in law, to grant the benefit of leave encashment to the employees. Since all the other benefits that were due and payable to the petitioner are released in favour of the petitioner, except leave encashment, it would be necessary to dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the Municipal Council to release the amount payable to the petitioner towards leave encashment, in accordance with law, within a time frame. Since we have not granted interest on the other retiral benefits to the other employees of the Municipal Council who had approached this court in writ petitions, it would not be proper to direct the Municipal Council to pay the interest to the petitioner on the delayed payment of some of the benefits, specially when the Municipal Council is facing severe financial crunch.

::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:30:40 :::

07.04.WP3594.13-Judgment 4/4

4. In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the Municipal Council to release the amount payable to the petitioner towards leave encashment as early as possible and positively within three months. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                        JUDGE 


 KHUNTE




::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2017 00:30:40 :::