Bombay High CourtWP/1532/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Mahadeo S/O Dadarao Rakhe v. Union Of India Employee Provident Fund, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi And Others

2016-06-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1306wp1532.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1532/2016 Mahadeo s/o Dadarao Rakhe ...Versus...

Union of India, Employee Provident Fund, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.B. Bhise, Advocate for petitioner Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 13.06.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to forthwith release the pension of the petitioner with interest.

The petitioner was appointed as a Senior Clerk in the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growing Marketing Federation Limited, Yavatmal and after he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, he started receiving monthly pension w.e.f. 2.6.2005. Though the monthly pension was received by the petitioner from 11.2.2007 to 30.6.2007, the respondent nos.2 and 3 stopped releasing the pension in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, sought the aforesaid direction against the respondents.

The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that as there were certain

1306wp1532.16.odt discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner, the payment of monthly pension was stopped. It is submitted that the arrears of pensionary benefits have been released in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition and the petitioner is also paid the regular monthly pension. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid, the grievance of the petitioner should not survive.

We, however, find on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties that the monthly pension of the petitioner could not have been stopped abruptly as the petitioner had started receiving it since 11.2.2007. Also, the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post to seek the monthly pension that was suddenly stopped on 30.6.2007. If there were some discrepancies in the documents submitted by the petitioner, the respondents should have done the needful within a short time. The monthly pension of the petitioner was however not released to the petitioner from 1.7.2007 till February, 2016. The arrears of pension were released only on 29.2.2016. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents to pay interest on the arrears of pensionary benefits @9% per annum from 1.7.2007 till 29.2.2016, within a period of two months. If the petitioner is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement in the monthly pension amount, the petitioner is free to take appropriate steps. Order accordingly. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar