Smt.Foolmati W/O Premlal Ragde vs Chief Officer,Council Tumsar & 2 ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2683 Bom

   wp2567.02                                                                            1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT  PETITION NO.  2567  OF  2002


  Smt. Foolmati w/o Premlal Ragde,
  aged about 61 years, r/o
  Gandhi Nagar, Tumsar,
  District - Bhandara.                                 ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. Chief Officer,
     Municipal Council, Tumsar,
     District - Bhandara.

  2. The Collector,
     Tahsil Office,
     District - Bhandara.

  3. Regional Director,
     Municipal Council Administration,
     Nagpur.                                           ...   RESPONDENTS



  Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
                     .....

                                  CORAM :       B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

MAY 31, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Nobody for the petitioner or respondent No. 1 -

Municipal Council. Shri A.V. Palshikar, learned AGP appears

for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

2. The learned AGP has invited our attention to the

order of this Court dated 03.08.2004 passed on Civil

Application No. 1127 of 2004 and to Annexure R-1 filed along

with return by Respondent No. 3.

3. A perusal of orders dated 03.08.2004 shows that

pension amount due and payable to the petitioner was worked

out at Rs.65,923/- and a direction was issued to make it over to

the petitioner. In the wake of this order, it appears that the

petitioner may be receiving pension as per law regularly. The

petitioner has in paragraph 6 of her petition pointed out that

she is entitled to gratuity amount of Rs.57,446/-, leave salary of

Rs.36,069/-, increment arrears of Rs.4,200/-, salary arrears of

Rs.7,000/- and Rs.360/- towards bonus and other benefits.

4. Respondent No. 1 - Municipal Council has pointed

out that she was entitled to receive Rs.24,000/- towards

gratuity, Rs.3,000/- towards increment, Rs.7,000/- towards

salary arrears. They claim that out of it, Rs.24,000/- is already

paid to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has not produced before this Court

any material to substantiate her claim to gratuity amount or

leave salary. In this situation, it appears that she has received

the amount of Rs.10,000/- more from respondent No. 1 -

Municipal Council. Similarly, if gratuity amount and pension

amount is not paid within reasonable time, she is entitled to

interest upon it as per law.

6. The other grievance made by the petitioner is to

provide employment to her son on Vashila Padhdat as per

report of Tambe Committee. A report has been submitted as

per orders of this Court dated 03.09.2003. As local bodies were

not getting employees to work on the post of Sweeper and

young people were / are reluctant to join on that post, this

method was devised by the State Government after accepting

report of Page Committee and Tambe Committee. As per this

policy, a legal heir or a nominee dependent on a retiring

employee, working as a Sweeper, is to be provided work.

7. In the report which has been made available for

perusal at Annexure R-1, with its return by Respondent No. 3, it

is pointed out that Respondent No. 3 - Municipal Council,

Tumsar has got 139 sanctioned posts of Sweepers and 118

were filled in. There were 21 vacancies. The Municipal Council

was maintaining a waiting list for providing employment on the

post of Sweeper and in that waiting list, name of the petitioner

i.e. son figured at Sr. No. 34. In addition, it is pointed out that

when law expected Tumsar Municipal Council, not to spend

more than 55% of its earnings on administration, since the

year 2000-01, it was spending more amount. The amount

lastly paid in the year 2002-03 is 74.43% of its earnings. The

petitioner - lady has retired on 31.05.2001. In the year 2000-

01, said expenditure was Rs.60.20%. In view of this excess

expenditure, as per Government norms, Municipal Council

cannot make any recruitment.

8. We, therefore, find that at this stage, no other relief

can be given to the petitioner. As and when Respondent No. 1

- Municipal Council starts making recruitment in the cadre of

Sweeper, keeping in mind waiting list number of son of the

petitioner, the offer shall be extended to that son by respondent

No. 1.

9. With these directions and with liberty to the

petitioner to approach again, if any grievance arises hereafter,

we dispose of the present writ petition. Rule discharged.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall

be no order as to costs.

           JUDGE                                                      JUDGE
                                              ******

  *GS.