Smt. Swati Wd/O Satish Mulkar ... vs Mah.State Khadi And Village ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2686 Bom

   wp1846.02                                                                      1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH

                    WRIT  PETITION NO.  1846  OF  2002


  Smt. Swati wd/o Satish Mulkar,
  r/o c/o Advocate Yogendra Pathak,
  New Pusad, Tahsil - Pusad,
  District - Yavatmal.                           ...   PETITIONER

                    Versus

  1. Maharashtra State Khadi and
     Village Industries Board,
     through its Chief Executive
     Officer, Victoria Terminus,
     Mumbai.

  2. Maharashtra Khadi Gramoudyog
     Madyawarti Sangh, 727,
     Sadashivpeth, Pune 411 030.                 ...   RESPONDENTS
                    .....

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

MAY 31, 2017.

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

Nobody for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The petitioner - a widow, aged about 38 years on

18.04.2002 is before this Court seeking a direction to employer

of her husband to presume that her husband retired on

superannuation and to pay all his benefits accordingly to her.

She claims that her husband viz. Satish Prabhakar Mulkar had

put in about 20 years of service with the respondents at the

time of his death on 29.12.2000. The other direction sought is

to provide her compassionate employment.

3. This Court admitted the matter on 28.08.2003.

Notice earlier was issued on 23.09.2002. Thus, the matter is

pending with this Court since last 15 years.

4. Respondent No. 1 - Maharashtra State Khadi and

Village Industries Board, has filed reply and pointed out that

husband - Satish was never employed by it and was not

working with it. It has claimed that Respondent No. 2 -

Maharashtra Khadi Gramoudyog Madyawarti Sangh is an

independent authority with which it has no concern and it does

not in any way control working of Respondent No. 2. Thus,

submissions filed by Respondent No. 1 are received by the

petitioner on 28.01.2003 and thereafter the petitioner has not

taken any steps in the matter. With the result, we have to

accept the contention that Satish was not working with

Respondent No. 1. His employer viz., Respondent No. 2 has

chosen not to appear.

5. The record shows that the petitioner has, before

approaching this Court, made a representation on 22.01.2001

to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has given reply to it on

11.04.2001 through its Advocate. Respondent No. 2 has

pointed out that it has to recover some amount from the

deceased husband. It has further stated that after his death, the

petitioner was liable to pay that amount. The petitioner was,

therefore, advised to contact the Secretary of Respondent No. 2

- Institution. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that there is no

provision for grant of employment on compassionate ground

and as such her request therefor cannot be looked into. After

receipt of this reply dated 11.04.2001, the present petition has

been filed on 02.05.2002. Along with the petition, no

documents are placed to show that Respondent No. 2 has any

provision for grant of compassionate employment. In Writ

Petition also no notification or policy decision or rules in this

respect are pointed out. No previous instance in which

compassionate employment has been granted to anybody has

been pointed out.

6. We, therefore, find that even claim for

compassionate employment cannot be looked into in present

matter. However, the service rendered by the deceased Satish

for respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. His service is long

enough to qualify him to claim gratuity and provident fund.

There may also be some other serving benefits. In paragraph 3

of writ petition, the petitioner states that she has applied for

monetary funds such as Provident Fund and Gratuity on

21.01.2001 itself. The petition does not show that such

amounts are paid by Respondent No. 2 to her.

7. In reply dated 11.04.2001, respondent No. 2 has

claimed total an amount of Rs.70,333.67 ps. as due and

recoverable from the deceased Satish. The amount can be

recovered in accordance with law by Respondent No. 2 if it is

due and recoverable. However, Gratuity and provident fund

amount cannot be withheld for this purpose.

8. We, therefore, direct Respondent No. 2 to

determine the amount of gratuity and provident fund payable

to the deceased Satish as on 29.12.2000 and to pay to his legal

heirs. The legal heirs shall also be paid interest on the amount

so worked out, as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952. This direction shall be complied with within four months

from today.

9. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

10. The petitioner to communicate this order to

Respondent No. 2.

           JUDGE                                                    JUDGE
                                            ******

  *GS.