Bombay High Court
Shri. M.K. Kulkarni (Assistant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. The ... on 20 March, 2017
Author: V.M.Deshpande
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, V.M.Deshpande
2003WP3541.13-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3541 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- Shri M.K.Kulkarni, Aged 75 yrs., Occ. Retired
Assistant Registrar, R/o. C/o Shri S.B.
Godmare Balaji Ward, Chandrapur (M.S.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) The State of Maharashtra, through the
Principal Secretary of Co-operation and
Textile, Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32.
2) Registrar and Commissioner of Co-operative
Societies (State of Maharashtra), Central
Building, (2nd Floor), PUNE - 411011.
3) District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, GADCHIROLI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the petitioner.
Mr.K.L.Dharmadhikari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 20.03.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per V. M. Deshpande, J.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:59 ::: 2003WP3541.13-Judgment 2/5 learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 11 th of June, 2012 in Original Application No.71 of 2011 by which the learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Today when the matter was called, neither the petitioner nor his counsel remained present. No request is also made on behalf of the petitioner either to adjourn or passover the matter. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, the Court proceeded with the matter. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri K. L. Dharmadhikari in extenso. With his able assistance, we have gone through the writ petition and the order impugned in the present petition.
3. The original application was preferred by the petitioner since he was aggrieved that, interest was not paid on the delayed release of pension and other retiral benefits. The learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that the respondents were not responsible for the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits. Since according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it was due to the reasons that can solely be attributed to the petitioner himself. ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:59 ::: 2003WP3541.13-Judgment 3/5
4. The petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th of April, 1998. The petitioner submitted his pension papers on 31st of December, 2001. At the time of submission of his pension papers, the primary document i.e. the service book on which the pension benefits are decided was found to be incomplete. His service book remained incomplete, as there was certain period during his service period from 1983 to 1987 as well as 1994 to 1995, which had remained unaccounted for. Therefore, he was asked to provide the details of the period and also extend of his help for getting the service book completed in respect of this missing period. The learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner took inordinate time for providing the details of his absence during the aforesaid period. He also pointed out that he did not take any steps to get the service book updated before he retired and more specifically before 31 st of December, 2001, the day on which he submitted incomplete pension papers. He also submitted that the petitioner failed to furnish the certificate having exempted from passing the Marathi and Hindi examinations till he appeared for the same.
5. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it is clear that on 31st of December, 2001 when the pension papers were submitted by the petitioner those were in incomplete state and ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:59 ::: 2003WP3541.13-Judgment 4/5 subsequently he furnished the complete papers only on 29 th of May, 2008. On submitting his complete set of pension papers, his pension case was proceeded and it was sanctioned expeditiously and his retiral benefits including the arrears of pay came to be released from the period from 2nd of July, 2008 to 6 th of April, 2009. In respect of the delay of nearly seven years between the time the petitioner had first submitted his pension papers and when he submitted his revised papers, it could be seen that the delay was mainly due to the fact that the prolong period of petitioner's absence during 1983 to 1987 and 1995 had remained unaccounted for and it is the petitioner, who did not take any steps to ensure that his absence was regularised well in time.
6. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the delay in finalizing the petitioner's pension case was mainly due to his incomplete service record as reflected in the service book and it is the petitioner, who is responsible for not ensuring that the service book was updated well within time.
7. The respondent can be held responsible for paying interest only if the delay is attributable to the respondents/department alone. From the discussion made herein above, it is crystal clear that it is the petitioner, who was responsible firstly in not submitting the complete ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:59 ::: 2003WP3541.13-Judgment 5/5 pension papers initially and he took about 7 to 8 years to submit the pension papers complete in nature. After the pension papers were submitted, which were found to be complete in all aspect, his pension was released immediately. In that view of the matter, we see no reason to disturb the finding of fact recorded by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, who recorded a finding that it was the petitioner, who was responsible for the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Hence, no case is made out.
8. The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:59:59 :::