Munjahari Jaywantrao Khating v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 41 WRIT PETITION NO. 10845 OF 2017 WITH WP/6909/2018 MUNJAHARI JAYWANTRAO KHATING

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Tawshikar Swapnil D. AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 4 : Mr.A.P.Basarkar Advocate for Respondent Nos 5 & 6 : Mr. Aghav Avinash D. ----- CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

DATE : JULY 11, 2018 O R D E R :

These Writ Petitions are filed against the order of the Tribunal. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 10845 of 2017 is the employee and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6909 of 2018 is the employer. The employee had approached the Tribunal against non grant of interest on the retiral benefits, so also recovery of the amount under the head of school books reimbursement. The Tribunal granted interest to the petitioner at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of commuted pension and gratuity, however, in the operative part did not grant any interest on the amount of leave encashment, so also did not consider the claim of the employee for grant of school books reimbursement.

2.

Mr. Taushikar, learned counsel for the employee submits that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it is the case of intentional delay on the part of the employer in disbursing the pensionary benefits, though in the body of the judgment, the Tribunal has observed that the petitioner is entitled for interest even on leave encashment, same is not granted in the operative part of the order.

3.

Learned counsel further submits that the interest ought to have been granted at least at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as is present trend of granting interest. Learned counsel further submits that the claim for disbursement of school books reimbursement was made way back in the year 2009. There is no denial on the part of the respondent, still same is not granted. There are documents showing that the petitioner had spent that amount and there is no reimbursement to it.

4.

Mr. Aghav, learned counsel for the employer Zilla Parishad submits that the employer was not at fault in not disbursing the retiral benefits. The provisional pension was granted to the employee, however, before his retirement the Zilla Parishad had communicated to the Government for initiating disciplinary proceedings, though the same was communicated in August 2010. The Government replied in the year 2014 that disciplinary proceedings

cannot be initiated as the employee has retired. Thereafter the amount has been paid. There is no intentional delay on the part of the employer. In view of that, the interest has been wrongly saddled upon the Zilla Parishad.

5.

Learned counsel further submits that as far as amount towards school books reimbursement is concerned, the petitioner had taken advance of Rs. 28,000/- and spent it. Said amount is not payable to the petitioner. Same is specifically denied. 6.

We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has categorically come to the conclusion that there was delay on the part of the employer in disbursement of retiral benefits. The fact that the employer stood retired in 2010 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the employee had to approach to the Lok Ayukta and thereafter had to run from pillar to post for getting retiral benefits. In fact, there was no cause for the Zilla Parishad to approach the Government seeking permission to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee once he stood retired. Rules are abundantly clear in this regard. There is no fault of the employee in the delay caused for payment of the retiral benefits. 7.

In the light of above, no error has been committed by the Tribunal in granting interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. On perusal of the judgment, it is seen that the Tribunal

has observed that the employee is entitled for the interest of retiral benefits, such as gratuity, commuted pension and leave encashment, however, in the operative part of the order, the words "leave encashment" has been left out.

8.

The employee would be entitled for the interest on the leave encashment amount paid belatedly. As far as rate of interest is concerned, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in awarding interest at the rate of nine percent per annum. We do not think that the discretion has been exercised in unreasonable manner. 9.

As far as claim towards the amount of disbursement of school books reimbursement is concerned, there is no concrete evidence before this Court in that regard. There are rival claims. It would not be possible in Writ jurisdiction to investigate in this disputed fact.

10.

In the light of above, the order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the employee shall also be entitled for interest on amount of leave encashment at the rate of nine per cent per annum, in addition to the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of gratuity and commutted pension. Same shall be paid expeditiously, preferably within four months from today.

11.

Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. [SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.] dbm