Bombay High Court
Arun Bhagwanrao Khardekar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 WP NO.110/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.110 OF 2016
1. Arun s/o Bhagwanrao Khardekar,
Age: 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o Gopalpura, Near Sheetal Mata Mandir,
Jalna.
2. Dayanand s/o Bhagoji Dahale,
Age 69 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
3.
Pandurang s/o Tatyarao Ugale,
Age 64 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
4. Sambhaji s/o Namdeo Harale,
Age years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
5. Janu Shahu Rathod,
Age 62 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
6. Sudhir s/o Tukaram Shelke,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
7. Bhagwan s/o Ganpat Wahul,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
8. Vishnu s/o Motilal Jamdar,
Age 72 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
9. Madhavrao s/o Tatyarao Dhakne,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:27:29 :::
2 WP NO.110/2016
10. Sow.Chanda w/o Prabhakarrao Palaskar,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
11. Champat s/o Shankarrao Bhalerao,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
12. Babulal s/o Maganlal Sonwane,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
13. Asaram s/o Vitthalrao Khaire,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
14.
Ram s/o Dhakleshwar Karnade,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
15. Prakash s/o Krushnarao Ratnaparkhi,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
16. Ramkishan s/o Gangaram Choudhari,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
17. Smt.Gayabai Rambhau Mohite,
Age 64 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
18. Smt.Damyanti Rameshchandra Khardekar,
Age 65 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
19. Subhash s/o Narayan Dhotre,
Age 66 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
20. Tukaram s/o Damodhar Sonwane,
Age 61 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 08:27:29 :::
3 WP NO.110/2016
21. S.Kamroddin S.Fakroddin,
Age 66 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
22. Kishan Rajanna Pinamkar,
Age 63 years, Occu. Retired Employee,
r/o same as above.
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through: Director of Municipal Administration,
State Transport Service Building, 3rd Floor,
Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli,
Mumbai 400 030
2.
The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad.
3. The District Collector,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
4. The President, Municipal Council,
Jalna, Dist. Jalna.
5. The Municipal Council, Jalna,
Through its Chief Officer.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Suresh M.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, AGP for respondent State.
Mr. H. K.Munde, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4
and 5.
...
CORAM: R.M.BORDE
AND
P.R.BORA, JJ.
DATE : March 10th, 2016
***
4 WP NO.110/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M.Borde, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard
forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are retired employees of the
Municipal Council, Jalna, and are making grievance in respect of
the failure of the respondent employer to pay retiral benefits
admissible to the employees, which are overdue.
3. The total liability computed by the petitioners is to
the tune of Rs.29,42,855/-. The Municipal Council has not
disputed the liability, however, has contended that considering
the financial constraints, and looking at the prevailing drought
situation in the district, the funds are required to be diverted for
enforcement of water supply scheme with a view to provide
drinking water to the residents of Jalna.
4. It is no doubt true that the Municipal Council has to
take up the issue of providing drinking water to the citizens
residing within the municipal area on priority basis and major
funds are required to be diverted for the aforesaid purpose,
however, the petitioners are retired employees and the only
5 WP NO.110/2016
source of their livelihood is the retiral benefits to which they are
legally entitled.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, we deem
it appropriate to direct the respondent Municipal Council to pay
the dues receivable by the petitioners within a period of six
months from today.
Considering the financial constraints put forth by the
Municipal Council, we deem it appropriate to direct the
Municipal Council to pay interest on the amount receivable by
the petitioners at the rate of six per cent per annum from the
date of their entitlement to the amount till the date of receipt.
The respondents are, as such, directed to pay the
admissible dues to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible,
preferably, within a period of six months from today, together
with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, from the
date of their entitlement to the amount till the date of payment.
Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
JUDGE JUDGE
...
AGP/110-16wp
