Bombay High Court
Shri. M.K. Kulkarni (Assistant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 20 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3541 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Shri M.K.Kulkarni, Aged 75 yrs., Occ. Retired
Assistant Registrar, R/o. C/o Shri S.B.
Godmare Balaji Ward, Chandrapur (M.S.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through the
Principal Secretary of Co-operation and
Textile, Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32.
2) Registrar and Commissioner of Co-operative
Societies (State of Maharashtra), Central
Building, (2nd Floor), PUNE - 411011.
3) District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, GADCHIROLI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.03.2017
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per V. M. Deshpande, J.)
By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning
the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 2/5
learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 11 th
of June, 2012 in Original Application No.71 of 2011 by which the
learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed
on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Today when the matter was called, neither the petitioner
nor his counsel remained present. No request is also made on behalf of
the petitioner either to adjourn or passover the matter. Looking to the
fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, the Court proceeded with the
matter. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri K. L.
Dharmadhikari in extenso. With his able assistance, we have gone
through the writ petition and the order impugned in the present
petition.
3. The original application was preferred by the petitioner
since he was aggrieved that, interest was not paid on the delayed
release of pension and other retiral benefits. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader pointed out that the respondents were not
responsible for the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits. Since
according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it was due to
the reasons that can solely be attributed to the petitioner himself.
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 3/5
4. The petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30th of April, 1998. The petitioner submitted his
pension papers on 31st of December, 2001. At the time of submission of
his pension papers, the primary document i.e. the service book on which
the pension benefits are decided was found to be incomplete. His
service book remained incomplete, as there was certain period during
his service period from 1983 to 1987 as well as 1994 to 1995, which
had remained unaccounted for. Therefore, he was asked to provide the
details of the period and also extend of his help for getting the service
book completed in respect of this missing period. The learned Assistant
Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner took inordinate
time for providing the details of his absence during the aforesaid period.
He also pointed out that he did not take any steps to get the service
book updated before he retired and more specifically before 31 st of
December, 2001, the day on which he submitted incomplete pension
papers. He also submitted that the petitioner failed to furnish the
certificate having exempted from passing the Marathi and Hindi
examinations till he appeared for the same.
5. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it
is clear that on 31st of December, 2001 when the pension papers were
submitted by the petitioner those were in incomplete state and
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 4/5
subsequently he furnished the complete papers only on 29 th of May,
2008. On submitting his complete set of pension papers, his pension
case was proceeded and it was sanctioned expeditiously and his retiral
benefits including the arrears of pay came to be released from the
period from 2nd of July, 2008 to 6 th of April, 2009. In respect of the
delay of nearly seven years between the time the petitioner had first
submitted his pension papers and when he submitted his revised papers,
it could be seen that the delay was mainly due to the fact that the
prolong period of petitioner's absence during 1983 to 1987 and 1995
had remained unaccounted for and it is the petitioner, who did not take
any steps to ensure that his absence was regularised well in time.
6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the delay in finalizing
the petitioner's pension case was mainly due to his incomplete service
record as reflected in the service book and it is the petitioner, who is
responsible for not ensuring that the service book was updated well
within time.
7. The respondent can be held responsible for paying interest
only if the delay is attributable to the respondents/department alone.
From the discussion made herein above, it is crystal clear that it is the
petitioner, who was responsible firstly in not submitting the complete
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 5/5
pension papers initially and he took about 7 to 8 years to submit the
pension papers complete in nature. After the pension papers were
submitted, which were found to be complete in all aspect, his pension
was released immediately. In that view of the matter, we see no reason
to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the learned Member of the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, who recorded a finding that it
was the petitioner, who was responsible for the delayed payment of
pensionary benefits. Hence, no case is made out.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
