PADMANATH GOTIRAM LANDE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2016-7-148
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: AURANGABAD)
Decided on July 15,2016

Padmanath Gotiram Lande Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition is filed with the following prayers : "B. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, or writ of certiorari like nature and to quash and set aside the letter dated 18/12/2012, PPO No. 8737 issued by the respondent No.6 and direct the respondents to release the pension and amount which is withheld by respondent No.6 and its consequential benefits to the petitioner within two months and revise the pension of the petitioner." C. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, or writ of certiorari like nature and to direct the respondent No.6 to release the amount which is withheld by the respondent, to the petitioner with @ 18% interest till the realization of amount and said be recovered from the official head of the respondent No.6."
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice or assigning any reasons, the Respondents have withheld the amount payable to the petitioner towards pension and gratuity. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 18th December, 2012 issued by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 withholding the amount of gratuity to the extent of Rs.2,20,000/- drastically affects his right to receive the entire payment of gratuity and pension. Such an unilateral decision of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, without affording opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his contention, is arbitrary exercise of powers. It is submitted that the petitioner retired from the service on 31st December, 2012 with unblemished record. The petitioner was promoted on 17th May, 2008 and was getting the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and as per the Sixth Pay Commission, it comes to Rs.9300-38500, Grade pay Rs.4200/-. It is submitted that the pension proposal ought to have been prepared, keeping in view the length of service rendered by the petitioner and also last pay drawn. However, Respondent No.6 reduced the basic pay of the petitioner by Rs.1245/- from the pension of the petitioner. The pension proposal was not prepared as per last pay drawn, but considering the basic pay of Rs. 8,915/-. The gratuity amount of Rs.2,60,000/-, commutation of Rs.58,000/- and pension difference of Rs.75,000/- is not paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Petition deserves consideration.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, relying upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply submits that when the petitioner retired on 31st December, 2012 on attaining the age of superannuation, his pension papers were scrutinized by Respondent No.6 and it was noticed that the petitioner was eligible for time bound promotion, as per the Government Resolution dated 8th June, 1995, on 19th December, 1994, when he was working on the post of Pump Operator. However, at that time no time bound promotion was given to him, but instead of that he was given the regular promotion to the post of Electrician by order dated 8th January, 1996 and further on completion of 12 years on the post of Electrician, the petitioner was given benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme as per Government Resolution dated 20th July, 2001, and was granted higher pay scale of the post of Electrical Supervisor i.e. Rs. 9300/- Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- as per the Sixth Pay Commission Report, by way of ACP Scheme. It is submitted that had the time bound promotion been given to the petitioner in the year 1994 (i.e. 19th December, 1994) after completion of 12 years on the post of Pump Operator, he would have not been eligible for getting the benefit of ACP Scheme for second time to the post of Electrical Supervisor for the reason that the benefit of time bound promotion is to be given only once in the entire service tenure of the employee. It is submitted that so far the scheme of giving again benefits of assured promotion after completion of 24 years of service as per Government Resolution dated 1st April, 2010 has not been made applicable to the employees of the Respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.