Bombay High Court
Shamrao Nandu Sapkale vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 27 November, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1983 OF 2008
Shamrao Nandu Sapkale,
Age-65 years, Occu-Retired,
Gopalnagar, Behind Plot No.1,
Tq. Dist. Dhule -- PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai,
3. The Commandant,
SRPF, Daund, Division No.7,
Pune. -- RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5478 of 2008
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Director General of Police,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai,
3. The Commandant,
SRPF, Dound, Group No.7,
Pune. -- PETITIONERS
VERSUS
khs/NOV. 2017/1983
Shamrao Nandu Sapkale,
Age-65 years, Occu-Retired,
Gopalnagar, Behind Plot No.1,
Tq. Dist. Dhule -- RESPONDENT
Mr.S.D.Dhongade, Advocate for the petitioner/employee.
Mr.Y.G.Gujrathi, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.J.)
DATE : 27/11/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
1. The First petition is filed by the employee/original appellant.
Learned Advocate for the said appellant submits that he does not
desire to prosecute this 1st petition and the same may be disposed of,
as withdrawn. As such, the first petition filed by the employee stands
disposed of, as withdrawn. Rule is discharged.
2. The second petition has been filed by the State Government
and its Departments challenging the judgment delivered by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 08/02/2008 in Original
Application No.323/2007 filed by the employee/applicant. Learned
AGP has strenuously canvassed that the imposition of interest @ 10%
p.a. for the delay caused in making the payment of retiral benefits to
the employee, is an unsustainable order. He has drawn our attention
khs/NOV. 2017/1983
to the reasons assigned in the memo of the petition.
3. Learned Advocate for the employee has strenuously defended
the impugned order and submits that when an individual, after
retirement, is forced to run from pillar to post for seeking his retiral
benefits, the State Government, which is said to be a Model
Employer, cannot be absolved of its liability to compensate such an
employee by imposition of interest on the delayed payments.
4. We find from the record that the employee had to approach the
Tribunal earlier in Original Application No.83/2006. By judgment
dated 11/10/2006, the application was allowed and the State
Government was directed to expedite the payment of consequential
benefits based on the revision of pension and DCRG owing to the
order dated 26/09/2006, within 4 months. It is stated in the
impugned order in paragraph No.7 as to when were the retiral
benefits of the employee actually paid. The dates of payment are also
mentioned in the impugned order.
5. It is, therefore, apparent from the said dates of payments and
the orders of the Tribunal that there is a delay, which cannot be
attributed either to the conduct of the employee or for any other
khs/NOV. 2017/1983
reason. We, therefore, find that the impugned order imposing
interest for the period of the delayed payment, can neither be termed
as being perverse or erroneous.
6. The learned AGP contends that they had sought extension of
time for making the said payment. Hence the State cannot be faulted
for having made a delayed payment. We are not impressed with
these submissions for the reason that grant of extension of time
cannot be a ground for absolving the State from paying interest. The
application for extension of time was made by the Government
obviously to avoid contempt proceedings and cannot be deemed to
absolve the State of its responsibilities in paying interest on the
delayed payments.
7. The second petition, being devoid of merit, therefore stands
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/NOV. 2017/1983
