Gajananrao Gowardhan Nerkar vs National Power Traning ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6382 Bom

    WP 5640/05                                                   1                         Judgment

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




                                                                                               
                            WRIT PETITION No. 5640/2005




                                                                       
    Gajananrao Gowardhan Nerkar,
    Aged about 65 years,
    R/o: 36, Radhika, Dasra Road,
    Mahal, Nagpur.                                                                     PETITIONER




                                                                      
                                       .....VERSUS.....

    1.    National Power Training Institute
          & Western Region under the Ministry of Power,
          Government of India, through its Dy.Director,




                                                   
          Office at South Ambazari Road,
          Opposite VRC Gopal Nagar, Nagpur.
    2.    The Naib Tahsildar,
                              
          Office of Tahsildar, Nagpur City, Nagpur.                                       RESPONDENTS
                             
                                    None for the petitioner.
                                None for the respondent no.1.
          Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2.
      


                                      CORAM :SMT.VASANTI  A   NAIK  AND
   



                                                   KUM. INDIRA  JAIN, JJ.        

                                                 :      26  TH         OCTOBER,     2016.
                                       DATE       
                                                              

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action

on the part of the respondents to recover the gratuity amount that was

paid to the petitioner.

2. On a reading of the writ petition and the affidavit-in-reply

filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, it appears that the relief sought by

WP 5640/05 2 Judgment

the petitioner cannot be granted, as the respondents had wrongly

paid the gratuity to the petitioner, though he was not entitled to the

same. Since the petitioner was re-employed by the respondents

after completing the pensionable service in the military, according

to the relevant rules, the petitioner was not entitled to receive

gratuity after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation

in the services of the respondents. As per O.M. No.4.1.87-PIC-II,

dated 01.05.1987, the Central Government employees that were

allowed to subscribe to contributory provident fund on re-employment

were not entitled to retirement gratuity. An issue like the one

involved in this case was decided by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Mumbai Bench by the order dated 17.02.2004 in Original

Application No.342 of 2002 and a similar action of the

present respondents in the case of the re-employed retired

employee of the respondents was upheld. It appears that since

this court did not prima-facie find favour with the claim made by the

petitioner, while issuing Rule in the matter on 25.01.2006, this court

permitted the petitioner to pay the amount that was sought to be

recovered in installments of Rs.1,000/- per month commencing

from 10.02.2006. The entire amount that was sought to be

recovered from the petitioner must have been paid by the petitioner

to the respondents by now.

WP 5640/05 3 Judgment

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, we dismiss the

same with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                  JUDGE                                     JUDGE




                                                     
    APTE