Bombay High Court
Dr. Suresh Janardhan Gaikwad vs Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi ... on 26 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
wp5157.05.odt
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
wp5157.05.odt
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
