Bombay High Court
Vinayak S/O Laxmanrao Digrase vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Others on 31 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp3284.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3284/2005
PETITIONER: Vinayak s/o Laxmanrao Digrase,
Aged about 59 years, Occupation - Retired,
R/o Ward No.8, Mowad Town, Tahsil - Narkhed,
Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra,
Department of Urban Development, through
its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Municipal Council, Mowad, through its
Chief Officer, Mowad, Tahsil- Narkhed,
District - Nagpur.
3. Shri Vijay Dhanraj Deshmukh,
Occupation : Service, presently working as
Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Mowad,
Tahsil - Narkhed, District - Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent no.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 31.08.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against
the respondents to release the provident fund, gratuity, commuted
pension and other monetary benefits to the petitioner.
wp3284.05.odt
According to the petitioner, though the petitioner had
retired on attaining the age of superannuation as a head clerk, with the
respondent - Municipal Council in the year 2004, the respondent -
Municipal Council did not pay the retiral dues to the petitioner.
The respondent - Municipal Council has filed the return in
the year 2009. It is stated in the return that an amount of Rs.3,77,444/- is
paid to the petitioner towards the retiral benefits. It is stated that the
entire provident fund is paid to the petitioner and out of the amount of
Rs.1,32,000/-, that is, payable to the petitioner towards gratuity, an
amount of Rs.55,000/- is paid and an amount of Rs.77,000/- is due and
payable.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that
after the said return was filed, a sum of Rs.22,000/- is paid to the
petitioner towards gratuity, however, an amount of Rs.55,000/- is still
due and payable.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent -
Municipal Council, we find that there is an admission on the part of the
Municipal Council that an amount of Rs.77,000/- was payable to the
petitioner towards the gratuity in the year 2009. The learned Counsel for
the petitioner has fairly stated that after 2009, a sum of Rs.22,000/- is
wp3284.05.odt
paid to the petitioner and the respondent - Municipal Council is still liable
to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the petitioner towards gratuity.
Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed. Since the other
monetary benefits are already released in favour of the petitioner, we
dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the respondent -
Municipal Council to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the petitioner with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner, till
the date of actual payment of the amount. We direct the respondent -
Municipal Council to pay interest only @ 6% per annum due to the poor
financial condition of the respondent - Municipal Council. It appears that
the retiral benefits of several employees, as also the regular salary of the
employees, that are still working, is not paid by the Municipal Council due
to financial stringency. The respondent - Municipal Council should pay
the amount of Rs.55,000/- with 6% interest as aforesaid, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp3284.05.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 02/09/2016
