Bombay High Court
State Of Maha, Thr Its Secretary, ... vs Murlidhar Devida Fulbandhe on 6 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5359.09.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5359/2009
PETITIONERS: 1. State of Maharashtra through
its Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Maharashtra, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Director, Town Planning,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
3, Church Road, Pune.
3. The Assistant Director, Town Planning
Traffic & Transport Cell, Anjali Cinema
Complex, Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Murlidhar Devidas Fulbandhe,
R/o Sudarshan Nagar, Opposite Ghodke
Primary School, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for petitioners
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 06.03.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioners - State of Maharashtra and
others have challenged the order of the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur, dated 24.11.2008 allowing an original application filed
by the respondent and directing the petitioners to pay a sum of
Rs.40,134/- to the respondent as full and final settlement.
wp5359.09.odt
According to the respondent, who was working as an
Interviewer in the Department of Town Planning, though he retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2006, the petitioners had
not paid the retiral benefits to the respondent till the original application
was filed. According to the respondent, the respondent was also not paid
the salary from March, 2006 to December, 2006 till the original
application was filed. It is, however, not in dispute that after the original
application was filed, the petitioners paid the retiral benefits to the
respondent and also released his unpaid salary in September, 2007. Since
the respondent had produced a chart along with the application before
the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent for interest
on delayed payments, as per the chart, at Rs.40,134/-.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the petitioners states that there was no delay on the
part of the petitioners in releasing the retial dues. It is submitted that in
the chart presented by the respondent before the Tribunal for grant of
interest, the interest is claimed on all the retiral benefits from 31.12.2006.
It is submitted that the interest would be liable to be paid only after the
expiry of three months from the date of retirement. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader relied on the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension)
Rules in this regard. It is submitted that no interest was payable to the
wp5359.09.odt
respondent on the delayed payment of salary as a right to claim interest
on the same is not provided under the service rules or any other law. It is
submitted that the delay in releasing the salary was due to the fact that
the respondent was declared surplus and after the retirement of the
respondent, the order declaring him surplus was set aside in the Month of
August, 2007. It is submitted that on the mere asking of the respondent
the amount of Rs.40,134/- is directed to be released in favour of the
respondent.
The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the
order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the retiral dues and the salary
was released in favour of the respondent in the month of October and
September, 2007 respectively. It is submitted that the respondent would
be entitled to interest on the delayed payment. It is, however, fairly
admitted that though the respondent should have claimed interest on
gratuity and pension w.e.f. 1.7.2007, the respondent had claimed interest
w.e.f. 31.12.2006.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the Tribunal has, without considering the relevant rules or position of
law, whether the respondent could have claimed interest on salary and
certain other benefits, simply granted the claim of the respondent for an
amount of Rs.40,134/-, as claimed by him in the chart. The Tribunal
wp5359.09.odt
failed to consider that there was no right in the respondent to claim
interest on delayed payment of Home Town Concession and salary, for
which a substantial amount was claimed towards interest. The Tribunal
also should have considered that the respondent had not pointed out any
right in the respondent to claim interest on Leave Encashment. Without
considering whether the delay was on the part of the petitioners in
releasing the retiral benefits, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to pay a
sum of Rs.40,134/- to the respondent towards full and final settlement.
The finding of the Tribunal that the respondent was entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,134/- does not appear to be correct. The respondent was not
entitled to interest on delayed payment of Leave Encashment, Home
Town Concession and salary. On gratuity and pensionary benefits the
respondent was entitled to interest only from 1.7.2007. In our view, the
respondent would only be entitled to interest on delayed payment of
Gratuity, Commutation Pension and the Pension. As per the chart
tendered by the respondent for perusal, it appears that the respondent
would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,750/- towards interest on delayed
payment of gratuity, a sum of Rs.6,563/- towards delayed payment of
Commutation of pension and a sum of Rs.852/- towards delayed payment
of pension. Thus, the respondent would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.14,165/- towards interest. The Tribunal was not justified in directing
wp5359.09.odt
the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.40,134/- to the respondent towards
interest.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The judgment of the Tribunal is modified. The respondent would
be entitled to interest of Rs.14,165/-. Since the petitioners have deposited
a sum of Rs.40,134/- in this Court and the said amount is directed to be
invested in a fixed deposit account of a Nationalized Bank, we permit the
respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.14,165/- with interest accrued
thereon and permit the petitioners to withdraw the balance amount.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
