Shivaji Dhondu Nikam vs The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 11889 Bom

                                                   910 to 918-wp-3040-2020.odt



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     910 WRIT PETITION NO.3040 OF 2020

                PANDHARINATH DATTATRAYA RAJGURU
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     911 WRIT PETITION NO.3047 OF 2020

               PANDURANG GANPAT PALODKAR
                        VERSUS
    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND
                        OTHERS

                                    AND
                     912 WRIT PETITION NO.3859 OF 2020

                      SHRIRAM KONDIBA WALKE
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     913 WRIT PETITION NO.4371 OF 2020

                     ASHOK NAMDEO SONAWANE
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     914 WRIT PETITION NO.4377 OF 2020

                       AMRUTA PUNJAJI GADHE
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     915 WRIT PETITION NO.4455 OF 2020

                       SHIVAJI DHONDU NIKAM
                               VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     916 WRIT PETITION NO.4461 OF 2020

                      VISHNU ABARAO SOLUNKE
                               VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                                                            1/4

::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 09:48:41 :::
                                                        910 to 918-wp-3040-2020.odt



                                    AND
                     917 WRIT PETITION NO.4518 OF 2020

                   SUKHDEO SAMPATRAO THOMBRE
                              VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                    AND
                     918 WRIT PETITION NO.4696 OF 2020

                     BHAUSAHEB MAHADU SULTANE
                                  VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                      ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. More Ashok A.

AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. S.G. Sangle ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 26th AUGUST, 2021

PER COURT:-

1. We have heard Shri More, the learned advocate representing

the petitioners and the learned AGPs on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and

3 in the respective petitions.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that

respondent No.4 is purely a formal party and the issue in these petitions is

between the petitioners and the Revenue Authorities as regards execution

of the Revenue Recovery Certifcate (RRC) under the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). He, therefore, prays for leave to delete

respondent No.4. Leave granted. Deletion be carried out forthwith.

3. The issue before us is as regards execution of the Revenue

Recovery Certifcate issued by the competent authority in relation to the

gratuity amounts, which is payable to the petitioners. Entire gratuity

910 to 918-wp-3040-2020.odt

proceedings have culminated into fnal judgment. The employer of the

petitioners has not challenged the judgment, which has now attained

fnality.

4. We fnd from the record that the Controlling Authority as well

as the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have

delivered the respective judgments quantifying the amount of gratuity

payable to the petitioners. Since these judgments have attained fnality,

there is no reason for us to look there beyond.

5. There can be no dispute on the legal issue that once the

Revenue Recovery Certifcate is issued by the competent authority, the

District Collector has to entrust the matter to a responsible revenue ofcer,

who has to ensure the recovery of amounts by following the due procedure

laid down under the MLRC by treating the amounts as arrears of land

revenue. Needless to state, the employee's right to gratuity is well

recognized and it is the obligation of the employer to make the payment of

gratuity, failing which, interest can also be levied.

6. The learned AGPs appearing in the respective petitions

submit that they would not canvass against the provisions of law and are

aware that such amounts are treated as arrears of land revenue so as to

be recovered under the MLRC. They pray for a reasonable time so as to

enable respondent No.2 to initiate efective steps.

7. In view of the above, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of

with a direction to respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate steps to recover

the amounts set out in the Revenue Recovery Certifcates by following the

910 to 918-wp-3040-2020.odt

procedure laid down under the MLRC. The said amounts shall be

recovered on or before 31.12.2021 and would be disbursed to the

petitioners promptly and preferably within 15 days from the date of

recovery.

  (S.G. MEHARE. J)                  (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)




Mujaheed//