← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/15947/2022disposed off

Ashok Kisan Jetithar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Additional Secretary Revenue And Forest Dept. And ORS.

2023-02-15Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne2 pages

1 / 2 47-wp-15947-2022.doc rrpillai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15947 OF 2022 Ashok Kisan Jetithar ... Petitioner vs.

The State of Maharashtra through the Additional Secretary Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane for the Petitioner.

Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED : 15 FEBRUARY, 2023 P.C. :- 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was paid the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and pension belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the GPF amount is also paid belatedly. The petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment, pension and GPF.

2.

The Original Application was disposed of by the tribunal by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date:

2023.02.18 10:59:53 +0530 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI with observation that the applicant's claim for interest on the

2 / 2 47-wp-15947-2022.doc payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment is barred by limitation and as such is rejected. So far as GPF is concerned, the petitioner was asked to move respondent no. 4 to claim interest on GPF within one months. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter approached the said Tehsildar for the grant of such claim of interests. The claim of interest of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner can assail order of the Tahsildar before the appropriate forum.

3.

We do not find any error in the judgment of the tribunal rejecting the claim of interest on the delayed payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment. The said amount was already paid to the petitioner in the year 2012 and the OA was filed only in the year 2017. In light of that no case for interference with the order of the Tribunal is made out. 4.

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)