Bombay High Court
State Of Mah. Thr.Sec.Irrigation ... vs Rewanshi Nagoppa Haygale Dist. ... on 29 May, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 jg.wp965.02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 965 of 2002
(1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
(2) Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation (Local Sector)
Division, Ram Nagar,
Chandrapur.
(3) Accountant General (A & E)-II,
Maharashtra, Nagpur.
(4) Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division,
Zilla Parishad, Warhda.
(5) Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Warhda. ..... Petitioners
// Versus //
Rewanshi s/o Nagoppa Haygale,
Aged about 59 years,
R/o Rathi Layout, Near Rastrabhasha,
Dist. Wardha. ..... Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Shamsi Haider, Asst. Govt Pleader for the petitioners
None for the respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI and
Z. A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : 29/05/2017.
2 jg.wp965.02.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Heard Ms. Haider, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the petitioners. Nobody appears for the respondent though served.
2. It is obvious that respondent had filed O.A. No. 291/1998
before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal after his
superannuation. At the time of filing O.A., he was 59 years old, thus,
as on today, he is 78 years old. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal
has found him entitled to receive interest on belated payment of
provident fund and also amount of Rs. 8,216/- received less towards
the principal amount.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited our
attention to stand on affidavit in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of writ
petition. According to her, instead of giving credit of Rs. 34.30 Naya
Paisa, inadvertently, credit for Rs. 3430/- was given and that resulted
in calculation of excess provident fund amount. The inadmissible
interest on this amount with excess amount worked out to
Rs. 16,068/-. She submits that there were also certain other dues and,
as such, the amount of provident fund initially calculated at
Rs. 1,64,438/- was correctly brought down to Rs. 1,60,322/-.
3 jg.wp965.02.odt
4. With her assistance, we have perused case papers. It is
not in dispute that the present respondent retired as the Sub Divisional
Officer on 31-7-1996. General Provident Fund slip for year 1995-96
received by him revealed credit balance of Rs. 1,64,438/- at the end of
February, 1996. However, he was allowed to draw only Rs.1,60,322/-
i.e. Rs. 4116/- less.
5. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has heard
respective counsel and found entitlement as per slip issued at the end
of February, 1996. It then found that thereafter he worked four
months more till his superannuation and during that period, he was
entitled to subscription of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He therefore
received Rs. 8,216/- less towards principal amount.
6. While opposing claim of respondent for grant of interest,
employee (present petitioners) pointed out that they paid Rs. 12,351/-
and Rs. 1,325/- on 18-10-1999 and 11-1-2001 respectively. They
claimed that total amount of Rs. 13,676/- was towards disputed
amount. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that in
reply before it filed on 13-3-2001, said amount was pointed out
towards missing credits of 1982 and 1987. It therefore found that this
amount was not towards the disputed amount.
4 jg.wp965.02.odt
7. Thus, basically after perusal of record, the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal has reached finding of facts. It has found less
payment of Rs. 8,216/- and, therefore, while issuing directions to
release, it has also directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% per
annum. In present situation, we do not find any perversity. Petition is
dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
