Bombay High Court
Surekha Nanasaheb Pande vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
1 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7309 OF 2018
Surekha D/o Nanasaheb Pande,
Age : 60 Years, Occu. Pensioner,
R/o Shriyash Apartment,
Garkheda Parisar, Ulkanagari,
Aurangabad,
Tal and Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Accountant General (A & E)
II Maharashtra, Nagpur 440 001,
Post Box No.114.
3. The Commissioner,
Handicapped Welfare,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
4. District Social Welfare Offcer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
5. Navjeevan Society for Research and
Rehabilitation of Mentally retarded,
Naregaon Naka, Aurangabad,
Through its Secretary.
6. Navjeevan Matimand Mulanchi Shala,
Chikalthana, Aurangabad,
Through its Headmaster. ... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2021 23:14:29 :::
2 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. D. Gunale.
AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-State : Mr. S.B.Yawalkar.
Adv. for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 : Mr. C. V. Dharurkar.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 30.08.2021
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
fnally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner, a retired employee, has put forth
prayer clauses "C", "C-1" and "D" as under :
"C) By writ of certiorari or any other writ order of
direction, the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 issued by
respondent No.2 thereby deducting an amount of
Rs.21,106/- from the pension payable to the petitioner to
be quashed and / or set aside and consequently, the
respondent No.2 be directed to release the said amount of
Rs.21,106/- and be paid to the petitioner."
"C-1) By writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions the impugned letter/communication
dated 31.01.2019 issued by the respondent no.4 to the
Headmaster returning the proposal of leave encashment
of the petitioner submitted by the Headmaster on the
ground that, the employees enjoying long leave are not
entitled for the beneft of leave encashment, be quashed
and/or set aside."
3 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
"D) By writ of mandamus or any other writ order of
direction, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6 be directed to
pay the petitioner a remaining amount of gratuity with
18% interest and also the payment of leave encashment
with interest forthwith and for that purpose necessary
orders may kindly be issued."
3. We have considered the extensive submissions of
the learned advocates for the respective sides and with
their assistance, we have gone through the petition
paper book. Mr. Gunale has strenuously canvassed the
grounds set out in the memo of the petition.
4. Insofar as the deduction of Rs.21,106/- from the
retiral benefts of the petitioner is concerned, it is
apparent that the said amount was an excess payment
made to the petitioners with reference to the wrong
fxation of her pay scale. However, the petitioner has
specifcally executed an undertaking to the employer
that if there is any amount found to have been paid in
excess owing to incorrect fxation of pay, pension, family
pension, gratuity amount, value of pension or any
excess payment erroneously made, can be deducted or
would be refunded by the employee or may opt for an
adjustment against the payment of retiral benefts. We
4 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
are, therefore, of the view that this aspect of the matter
is covered by the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC
267. As such, we reject prayer clause "C".
5. Insofar as prayer clause "C-1" for leave
encashment claim of the petitioner is concerned, the In-
charge Head Mistress of the School had issued a
communication dated 23.03.2016 addressed to
respondent No.4 so as to appraise the said Authority
that the petitioner had not availed of long leave. It was
recommended that she should be paid leave
encashment.
6. An affdavit-in-reply has been fled by respondent
No.4 Mrs. Meena Ashok Ambadekar, District Social
Welfare Offcer. It has been set out in paragraph 8 that
the petitioner cannot be granted leave encashment, in
the light of the order of respondent No.4 dated
04.08.1995.
5 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
7. It is obvious that though respondent No.4 talks
about the communication dated 23.03.2016 issued by
the In-charge Head Mistress, we do not fnd that the
information supplied by the Head Mistress that the
petitioner has not availed of any long leave, has not been
considered.
8. To this extent, we are directing respondent No.4 to
consider the factual statement made by the Head
Mistress vide her communication dated 23.03.2016 and
arrive at a decision afresh, on or before 15.10.2021. In
the event, the decision is adverse to the petitioner, it
shall be supported with reasons and the petitioner
would be at liberty to assail the said decision. In the
event, respondent No.4 approves the leave encashment
of the petitioner, the said amount shall be paid to her,
as expeditiously as possible and preferably, on or before
30.10.2021.
9. Insofar as the prayer clause "D" is concerned, the
learned advocate Mr. Gunale submits that he had
fumbled in drafting the prayer. Issue is as regards late
6 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
payment of P. F. amount (GPF) and what is prayed is
that the gratuity amount was belatedly paid. Mr.
Gunale, therefore, submits that prayer clause "D" may
not be considered in this petition and the matter be
relegated to respondent No.4 to decide as to whether the
petitioner is at fault in submitting papers belatedly or
whether the papers were submitted in time and the
respondents delayed the payment of G.P.F.
10. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off by
directing respondent No.4 as under :-
(a) Comply with the direction set out in
paragraph No.8, herein above.
(b) Peruse the entire GPF fle of the petitioner
and assess as to whether the petitioner had
belatedly tendered the papers for payment of
G.P.F. Only in the event, the petitioner is not at
fault and the delayed payment is on account of
the mistake of the respondents-authorities,
appropriate interest as prescribed in law shall be
calculated and shall be paid to the petitioner, on
or before 30.11.2021.
7 1-WP.7309-18, oral jud.odt
11. Rule is discharged.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
...
vmk/-
