Bombay High Court
Zamir Khan Noor Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 3 April, 2020
Author: Vinay Joshi
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, V. G. Joshi
Judgment wp1852.18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NOS.1852, 2353, 2351, 2350 & 2347 OF 2018.
......
WRIT PETITION NO.1852 OF 2018.
Ramdas Marotrao More,
Aged about 77 years, Occ - Retired,
resident of Shivaji Nagar, Behind
SBI Digras, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2.The Divisional Commissioner and
Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Commissioner Office,
Camp Amravati.
3.The Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
4.The Municipal Council, Digras,
through its Chief Officer, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18
2
WRIT PETITION NO.2353 OF 2018.
Abdul Rahman Abdul Karim,
Aged about 61 years, Occ - Retired,
resident of Raza Nagar, Near Nagar
Parishad, Digras, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2.The Divisional Commissioner and
Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Commissioner Office,
Camp Amravati.
3.The Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
4.The Municipal Council, Digras,
through its Chief Officer, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2351 OF 2018.
Zamir Khan Noor Khan,
Aged about 63 years, Occ - Retired,
resident of Durgamata Chowk,
Digras, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18
3
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2.The Divisional Commissioner and
Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Commissioner Office,
Camp Amravati.
3.The Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
4.The Municipal Council, Digras,
through its Chief Officer, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2350 OF 2018.
Sadashiv Narayan Naware,
Aged about 66 years, Occ - Retired,
resident of Near Shankar Talkies
Digras, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18
4
2.The Divisional Commissioner and
Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Commissioner Office,
Camp Amravati.
3.The Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
4.The Municipal Council, Digras,
through its Chief Officer, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2347 OF 2018.
Abdul Kadar Haji Abaul Rahman,
Aged about 63 years, Occ - Retired,
resident of Near Dargah, Barabhai Mohalla
Digras, Tq. Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Department
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2.The Divisional Commissioner and
Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Commissioner Office,
Camp Amravati.
3.The Collector,
Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18
5
4.The Municipal Council, Digras,
through its Chief Officer, Digras,
District Yavatmal. ..... RESPONDENTS.
----------------
Shri Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for Petitioners.
Ms. T. Khan, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
-----------------
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR
AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 28.02.2020
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 03.04.2020
JUDGMENT (PER VINAY JOSHI, J) :
All petitioners have raised a common grievance about non-grant of interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension. Since a common question has been raised in all petitions, they can be conveniently disposed by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners were serving as clerks/kar sangrahak with respondent no.4 Municipal Council, Digras, District Yavatmal. All petitioners have retired and after great persuasion they got retiral benefits and partial interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension. The individual details of petitions are as below. ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18 6 Writ Petition Post Date of Date of Amount Amount No. retirement clearance claimed. received. of all dues Writ Petition Clerk 31/03/02 03/11/14 Rs.2,32,831/- Rs.11,442/- No.1852/201 8 Ramdas More. Writ Petition Clerk 01/07/07 03/11/14 Rs.2,87,295/- Rs.22,705/- No.2353/201 8 Abdul Karim. Writ Petition Clerk 31/01/13 03/11/14 Rs.36,138/- Rs.19,993/- No. 2351/2018 Zamir Khan. Writ Petition Kar 30/06/07 03/11/14 Rs.2,52,000/- Rs.20,066/- No. sangrah 2350/2018 ak Sadashiv Naware. Writ Petition Clerk 31/03/12 03/11/14 Rs.46,335/- Rs.20,059/- No. 2347/2018 Abdul Rehman.
3. For the sake of convenience we have taken details of petitioner Ramdas More [Writ Petition No.1852/2018] on exemplary basis. The petitioner was working on the post of clerk in the office of respondent no.4 Municipal Council. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2002. The respondent no.4 has not made timely payment of retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension arrears, arrears of 6 th pay ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 ::: Judgment wp1852.18 7 commission, G.P.F., and interest on delayed payment. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Municipal Council, petitioner and several other persons filed Writ Petition No.4533/2013 and others before this Court.
4. After hearing, all Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 24.02.2014. In all petitions the common question was about payment of retiral benefits including commuted part of pension. It was pointed out in said petition that this Court has looked into similar controversy in Writ Petition No. 2699/2007 and others, wherein directions were issued to release the amount and consider the entitlement of interest in the light of Rule 129[a] and 129[b] of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules. While deciding Writ Petition No. 4533/2013, this Court has considered the financial incapacity of respondent no.4 to pay the retiral dues. In that light, this Court suggested ways and means to respondent no.4 to generate funds and directed to set apart Rs. 2 lakhs every month for proportionate distribution to claimants/petitioners with interest every month. Liberty was granted to raise grievance if amount has not been paid within one year.
5. It is petitioners' case that, consequently to common order dated 24.02.2014, respondent no.4 has paid all the retiral benefits till November, 2014, but, has not paid the interest. The petitioner made several representations from time to time, but, respondent failed to pay interest on delayed payment of commutation amount of pension.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18 8
6. It is petitioner's contention that though respondent no.4 received grants from the State Government for payment of retiral benefits, still the amount was not paid in time. The petitioner has relied on the government circular dated 31.05.2002 and 14.11.2002, about grant of interest on delayed payment.
7. Respondent no.4 Municipal Council filed affidavit in reply by which it denied the claim. Respondent no.4 would submit that already they have paid the retiral benefits along with interest. Particularly, they have paid interest on commuted pension amount in view of the common orders passed by this Court on 24.02.2014 in Writ Petition No. 4533/2013 and others. On facts it is contended that employee cannot claim commutation of pension as of right, hence, not entitled to claim interest on said amount. Respondent contended that several contempt petitions were filed but, the same came to be rejected. Respondent relied on some orders passed by this Court where the claim of interest was rejected.
8. It is respondents' stand that they are self-governing body and it is 'C' category Municipal Council. As per availability of funds they have paid retiral benefits to the employees. Due to weak financial condition they were unable to pay the arrears. There was no intentional delay, hence, they are not liable to pay interest. Lastly it is contended that respondent acted bonafidely and after order of this Court, also paid interest on commutation pension amount. ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::
Judgment wp1852.18 9
9. The controversy is only about interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension. The rest of entire grievance of petitioners was redressed. Admittedly, after order of this Court, respondent no.4 Municipal Council has paid all the arrears and retiral dues in installment till November, 2014. Moreover, interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension was paid from the date of common order dated 24.02.2014.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is petitioners' statutory right to get interest. In this regard petitioner has relied on the decision in case of D.D. Tewari (D) through L.Rs. .vrs. Uttar Haryana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd and others - AIR 2014 SC 2861, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that if pensionary benefits and gratuity amount is erroneously withheld, then employee is entitled for grant of interest on delayed payment. The petitioners has also relied on the decision of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra and others .vrs. Satyadeo Nandakishore Awasthi (D) by L.Rs. - 2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 344. In said case, it is ruled that once the employee is exonerated from the charges, he is entitled for pensionary amount with interest. As against this, the respondent submitted that there is no provision to pay interest on delayed payment of amount of commutation of pension. In support, respondent has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chief General manager, Gujarat Telecom Circle and others .vrs. Manilal Ambalal Patel and another - AIR 2019 SC 1547. The said case relates to Central Civil Services Rules and related office memorandums issued ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 ::: Judgment wp1852.18 10 from time to time.
11. Much reliance is placed by petitioners' on the common order dated 24.02.2014, passed by this Court in bunch of petitions. Those petitions were basically for release of all retiral benefits. The learned counsel for respondent in said petition has showed its inability to pay, hence, direction was issued to set apart monthly amount of Rs.2 lakhs and pay dues proportionately with interest. Admittedly, from the date of said order, respondent no.4 has paid interest even on commutation of pension amount. The petitioners are claiming interest from their date of retirement. Notably, there is no direction of this Court in order dated 24.02.2014 to pay interest, particularly from the date of retirement.
12. The commutation of pension and its entitlement is covered under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1984. The eligibility of employee is governed under Rule 12 of the 1984 Rules. Application has to be filed within one year from retirement as per Rule 13, otherwise medical examination and other compliances are necessary. Naturally each case has to be examined independently on the basis of documents and related evidence.
13. None of the petitioners have pleaded as to when they applied for commutation amount of pension and date of sanction and their entitlement. The facts regarding entitlement differs from case to case. We have endeavored to ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 ::: Judgment wp1852.18 11 understand the particulars of each petitioner, but, details are missing. Petitioner of Writ Petition No. 1852/2018, though has filed copy of Forum"A" for commutation of pension, it does not bear the date. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2353/2018 and 2349/2018 neither pleaded as to when they have applied, nor produced documents to show as to when they applied and its details. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2351/2018, though filed copy of application dated 21.05.2013, but, has not pleaded its details.
14. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2350/2018, though retired on 30.06.2007, he has not applied within one year, but, belatedly applied on 16.10.2010 as per copy of his covering letter of application. It was case for commutation of pension after medical examination in terms of Rule 18 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, which requires independent scrutiny. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot go into individual compliances of every petitioner and actual date of entitlement of commutation of pension that too without details. The record indicates that Contempt Petition No.98/2015 was filed in which this Court vide its order dated 16.03.2017, declined to pass any order. Pertinent to note that in earlier batch of petitions also Contempt Petition No. 74/2013 and 75/2013 were filed but, vide order dated 24.03.2013, they were dismissed. This Court in Writ Petition No. 3973/2011, vide order dated 12.09.2012 declined to direct to pay interest since substantial grievance was redressed. Likewise in Writ Petition No.1856/2012, this Court refused to grant interest, but, granted ::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 ::: Judgment wp1852.18 12 liberty to file civil suit, since apparently disputed questions of facts were involved.
15. Herein the substantial grievance of all petitioners has already been redressed. All retiral benefits were paid to petitioners. There was no specific direction in earlier round of litigation to pay interest on delayed payment of commutation of pension. The respondent Municipal Council was in financial crisis still they paid interest of 10 months i.e. from the order of this Court. Several disputed questions are involved about individual compliances made by petitioners and their eligibility for commutation as per rules. We note that already entire arrears and all retiral benefits were given and contempt proceedings are disposed of, hence, there is no propriety in examining factual aspects in writ jurisdiction. We are not inclined to go in factual disputed questions, hence, we leave the issue open. Petitioners may approach Civil Court if so advised to establish their individual entitlement. As regards to other reliefs claimed they are in general nature, for which we do not feel it relevant to issue any general guidelines. With this, all Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 03/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/04/2020 06:37:03 :::