Bombay High Court
Smt.Suvidha Wd/O Vyankatesh Gade ... vs The Presiding Officer,M.A.T.Nag.& 2 ... on 9 August, 2018
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, Z.A. Haq
wp415.02 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 415 OF 2002
Smt. Suvidha wd/o Vyankatesh
Gade (since dead through LRs)
1. Pravin Vyankatesh Gade,
(Son), r/o Plot No. 258, Shankar
Nagar, Nagpur 440010.
2. Smt. Megha Rakesh Kapoor
(daughter) r/o House No. 10,
Post Office Road, Mandi
(Himachal Pradesh).
3. Mrs. Vaishali S. Danda,
(daughter) r/o Canal Road,
Gokulpeth, Nagpur.
4. Mrs. Manisha A. Gandhi,
r/o Kamla Nagar, Amravati
Road, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The Presiding Officer,
Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra through
the Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Adiwasi Division,
Near Tapowan Gate, Behind
Postal Colony, Amravati 444 602. ... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:35:24 :::
wp415.02 2
Shri A.J. Dhoble, Advocate holding for Shri R.S. Parsodkar,
Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri P.S. Tembhare, AGP for respondent No. 2.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
AUGUST 09, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER Z.A. HAQ, J.)
Heard the learned advocates for the parties.
2. With the assistance of Shri P.S. Tembhare, learned AGP for respondent No. 2, we have examined the documents placed on record of writ petition.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by which it was directed that the respondents (employer) should ascertain and assess the amount which is to be recovered from the family pension receivable by the widow of the deceased employee. In this petition, the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing review application is also challenged.
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:35:24 ::: wp415.02 3
4. After examining the facts of the case, we find that the employer took steps to deduct the amount of Rs.75,900/- from the amount receivable by the widow of the deceased employee. This amount was worked out after the death of the deceased employee and according to the employer the recovery was to be made to make good the loss caused because of shortages in the Store where the deceased employee was working.
5. In the impugned order, there is no discussion on the point whether the amount to be recovered was assessed after conducting inquiry in the matter. Further, we find that though in the prayer of the petition, the petitioner has sought directions that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 be ordered to pay Rs.75,900/- along with interest, in the Original Application which was filed before the Tribunal, it was stated that the respondents have worked out the recovery to the tune of Rs.1,19,752/-.
6. Be that as it may, as we find that the respondents ::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:35:24 ::: wp415.02 4 have not been able to point out that the recovery was worked out after conducting inquiry. The inquiry could not be conducted as the employee died on 11.02.1993.
In these facts, we hold the decision of the respondents to recover the amount from the family pension, unsustainable.
Hence, the following order :
(i) The order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340 of 1994 on 20.10.1994 is set aside.
Consequently, the order passed on Review Application No. 126 of 1994, dismissing the Review Application does not survive and is set aside.
(ii) The respondents (employer) are directed to pay the amount receivable by the original petitioner Smt. Suvidha (widow of employee) as per the Rules. It is clarified that while working out the amount receivable by Smt. Suvidha, the respondents (employer) shall not deduct any amount towards the recovery for the alleged shortages. The employer shall also ::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:35:24 ::: wp415.02 5 pay interest on the amount payable by it, as per the Rules.
(iii) As Smt. Suvidha (widow of the employee) has expired on 18.04.2013, the amount be disbursed to petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 (legal representatives of Smt. Suvidha) as per law.
(iv) This entire exercise shall be undertaken within six months.
(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2018 23:35:24 :::