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
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
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.
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
