Bombay High Court
Shantaram Tryambak Solanke And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 5 September, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:21503-DB
47.24wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2024
1. Shantaram Tryambak Solanke,
Age: 60 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. 16, Trimurti Society,
Near Bhavani Mandir,
Pimprala, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
2. Prabhawati Madhukar Zalte,
Age: 62 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Gut no. 60, Plot no. 95,
Shiv Colony, Jalgaon,
Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon
3. Eknath Zipru Kapade,
Age: 64 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Kapase Galli, Pimprala,
Tq. And Dist. Jalgaon
4. Asha Dayaram Mahajan,
Age: 64 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. Bhoite Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
5. Hiraman Gangadhar Patil,
Age: 69 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o. 8, Ganpati Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
6. Mohammad Yunus Abdul Sattar,
Age: 59 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Aksanagar, Meharoon, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon
7. Raziyabano Mohammad Ishak,
Age: 60 years, Occ. Retired,
47.24wp
(2)
R/o Aksanagar, Meharoon, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary to
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Director of Municipal Administrative
3rd Floor, GTS Building,
Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Mumbai
3. The Municipal Corporation of Jalgaon
Through its Commissioner
4. The Administrative Officer,
Office of School Board,
Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
Dist. Jalgaon ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Vinod Patil, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr S. K. Tambe, Addl. G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr L. V. Sangit, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 5th September, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally, by consent of the learned Advocates for the respective
sides.
47.24wp
2. We have perused the strenuous submissions of the
learned Advocates for the respective sides. The
Respondent/Municipal Corporation has entered an affidavit-in-
reply, dated 22/07/2024. Our attention is drawn to paragraph
No.2 of the said reply, which reads as under :-
"2. I say and submits that, petitioners asked commutation
of pension. As per rule 13(1) of Maharashtra Civil Services
(Commutation Of Pension) Rules 1984. "An Applicant who
is in receipt of any pension referred to in rule 12 and desire
to commute a fraction of that pension any time after the
date his retirement from service but before the expiry of one
year from the date of retirement, shall-
(a) apply to the head office in form -A after the date
his retirement;
(b) Ensure that the application in form -A duly
completed, is delivered to the head office as early as
possible but not later than one year of the date of
retirement:"
As per these rules, the Petitioners ought to have submitted
their applications within one year from the date of
retirement in form-A but they have not submitted the same
within one year, therefore commutation of pension is not
paid to the petitioners. All petitioners are getting 100%
pension and there is no monetary loss caused to them."
3. It is, thus, obvious that, Rule 13(1) of the Maharashtra
Civil Services (Commutation Of Pension) Rules, 1984, permits a
47.24wp
candidate to seek commutation of pension before expiry of one
year from the date of retirement. For the said purpose, he has to
apply to the Head Office in Form 'A'. Once Form 'A' is duly
filled in and is complete in all respects, it has to be delivered to
the Head Office. In the instant case, there are no pleadings by the
Petitioners that, any of them had filled in Form 'A' and had
tendered it to the concerned Head Office. There is no allegation
that, their forms were kept pending and were not processed. In
the absence of pleadings and material before the Court, a Writ of
Mandamus cannot be issued merely because the Petitioners pray
that this Court should show sympathy towards them. A statement
is made by the Petitioners in paragraph Nos.1 and 2 of the Petition
paper book, they have retired between 7 years to two years, prior
to the filing of this Petitions.
4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed
to the extent of the prayer of the Petitioners for commutation of
pension. In the event, though there are no pleadings, if any of the
Petitioners can make out a case of having entered Form 'A', well
within time, or has still not completed one year of his retirement,
47.24wp
he can file Form 'A' and the Corporation shall consider the said
claim.
5. Insofar as the prayer for gratuity is concerned, the
learned Advocate for the Corporation submits that, part payment
of the gratuity has been made to the extent of 50% share of the
Corporation. He submits that the Government has to pay the
remaining 50%.
6. The issue as to prescribing interests on belated
payment of gratuity @ 12% p.a., in the light of the Notification
dated 05.10.1999, we leave the said issue open to the Petitioners
to tender representation to the Employer precisely calculating the
outstanding dues, as well as the interest component. The
Corporation shall verify the said claims and upon being
convinced, shall make the payment to the Petitioners within 60
days from the date of tendering of the representation. Insofar the
share of gratuity of the Government to the extent of 50% is
concerned, we direct the State, to make such payment along with
statutory interest per annum, within 60 days from today.
47.24wp
7. If the Model Code of Conduct is introduced, the same
would not be an impediment for complying with the aforesaid
directions.
8. This Writ Petition is disposed off.
9. Rule is discharged.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
