Bombay High Court
Laxman Tukaram Patil vs Jamner Tal Education Society ... on 19 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 1154/04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1154 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6477 OF 2010
Laxman s/o. Tukaram Patil,
Age 68 years, Occu. Pensioner,
Retired Headmaster,
New English School, Jamner,
R/o. Ashirwad, Nagarkhana, Jamner,
Taluka Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner.
Versus
1. Jamner Taluka Education Society,
Jamner, Through its President
Shri Abaji Nana Patil,
Age 75 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o. Jamner, Tal. Jamner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The Headmaster,
New English School, Jamner,
Taluka Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon.
3. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
School Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Deputy Director of Education,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
5. The Education Officer (Secondary),
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
6. The Accountant General,
(A & E) - I Maharashtra,
101, Maharshi Karve Marg,
Mumbai. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Chavan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mrs. V.N.Patil-Jadhav, A.G.P. For respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:38:54 :::
WP No. 1154/04
2
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : June 19, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
. The petition is filed for giving directions to the
respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. to the petitioner
due to delay caused in making payment of pension. The period is
given as 31.5.1993 to 22.9.2002. Both the sides are heard.
2. The submissions made show that the petitioner was in
the employment of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the Headmaster and
his date of retirement due to superannuation was 31.5.1993. There
were some allegations against him and so, he was first placed under
suspension. Writ Petition No. 2580/1992 was filed in this Court and
the petitioner succeeded in the said proceeding and order was
made to reinstate him. Even contempt proceeding was filed as order
made by this Court was not complied with by the employer. He was
shown to be reinstated on 15.2.1993. Then he came to be
terminated on 5.3.1993. The order of termination came to be
challenged before the School Tribunal in appeal. In the appeal, stay
order was made on 30.4.1993 and so, the termination was
suspended. It can be said that for few days in the month of May
1993, he was allowed to work as Headmaster and then he retired on
31.5.1993.
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:38:54 :::
WP No. 1154/04
3
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner to challenge the
termination came to be allowed on 23.12.1993. As the matter was
decided after the age of retirement, the only thing which the
employer was expected to do was to process the matter of pension.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the processing was not
done and as it was done in the year 2001 properly, he started
getting pension from September 2002 and till then he was getting
the provisional pension which was less than the pension which was
finalised in his favour. It is the contention of the petitioner that as
per Rule 129-B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, it
is the responsibility of the employer to pay interest as matter was
not processed when pension had become due.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it
was not clear case and as one criminal case was pending against
the petitioner, the Accounts Officer refused to finalise the pension
and the matter was referred back to the employer by the Accounts
Officer. Such record is produced. The record shows that there was
some doubt in the Office of Accounts Officer over the release of two
advance increments in favour of the petitioner and then there were
some deficiencies in the proposal. Those deficiencies were
attempted to be removed by the employer. The last correspondence
made by the Office of Accounts Officer shows that due to pendency
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:38:54 :::
WP No. 1154/04
4
of criminal case which was filed by employer as a private complaint
in respect of the same incident, the Accounts Officer had not
finalised the pension. Ultimately, on 22.10.2001 the employer
compromised the matter and due to that the private complaint
came to be disposed of and then again processing of the matter
was done.
5. The learned counsel for the employer submitted that
when the petitioner himself was the Headmaster, it was his job to
do the needful and as he did not process the matter during his
tenure, direction cannot be give to the employer to pay the interest.
This submission is not acceptable. Admittedly, the employer had
filed a private complaint against the petitioner and he had avoided
to reinstate the petitioner even when the order of suspension was
set aside by this Court. The petitioner retired due to superannuation
on 31.5.1993 and so, it can be said that atleast after the retirement
of the petitioner, it was the responsibility of the respondent Nos. 1
and 2 to see that the matter of pension was immediately processed.
Though there is some correspondence to show that the processing
was done, the letters written by the Accounts Officer show that
there were deficiencies and for that, the petitioner could not have
been blamed. It can be said that only after the disposal of the
criminal case in the year 2001, the processing picked up the speed
and then the matter of pension was finalised by the Accounts
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:38:54 :::
WP No. 1154/04
5
Officer. Thus, apparently, there was fault on the part of the
employer.
6. The Pension Rules show that the processing needs to be
started eight months prior to the date of retirement due to
superannuation. In view of this circumstance and aforesaid peculiar
circumstances, this Court holds that the period of eight months
could have been given to the employer from the date of decision of
School Tribunal and for that the employer cannot be directed to pay
the interest on the amount which was payable as pension to the
petitioner. In respect of the remaining period, there is no
justification with the employer in not taking concrete steps to see
that the pension matter was finalised. On this point, the learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on some observations
made by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013 [State
of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.]
decided on August 14, 2013. The Apex Court has discussed the
Rules of Jharkhand State in this regard and it is observed that there
was no Rule preventing the payment of pension amount even if the
criminal case or departmental enquiry was pending. In view of the
aforesaid peculiar circumstances, this Court holds that there is no
need to refer the Rules of this State and the aforesaid material is
sufficient to give directions to the respondents to pay the interest at
the rate as provided for the General Provident Fund as such rate is
::: Uploaded on - 23/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2017 00:38:54 :::
WP No. 1154/04
6
mentioned in the Pension Rules. In the result, following order is
made.
ORDER
1. The Writ Petition is allowed.
2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2/employer are hereby
directed to pay interest at the rate, which was fixed for
General Provident Fund for the relevant years, on the
difference between the provisional pension and the final
pension for the period which would start after eight
months from the date of decision of the School Tribunal in
the appeal filed by the present petitioner.
3. The interest on difference is to be paid to the
petitioner within a period of four months from today.
4. Civil Application No. 6477 of 2010 for fixing early
date of hearing the petition stands disposed of.
Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
