Allowed

Tarachand Jagannath Pardeshi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2009WP/614/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Collector to effect recovery of the gratuity difference with interest from Beed Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha, eight weeks from the date of the order, relying on recovery certificates tendered by petitioners, without issuing a notice for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 3 (Collector) to effect recovery of the amount against respondent no. 2 within eight weeks pursuant to the recovery certificates.

Tarachand Jagannath Pardeshi and Ors. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.614 OF 2009

¶5

1. Shri Tarachand s/o Jagannath Pardeshi, age 64 yrs, occ. Nil, R/o Guruwar Peth, Ambajogai

¶6

2. Shri Venkat s/o Vishwanath Chavan, age 66 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Nandgao, Tq. Ambajogai

¶7

3. Shri Ratan s/o Kishan Bharati, age 66 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Bharaj, Tq. Ambajogai

¶8

4. Shri Prabhakar s/o Nilkanthrao Autade, age 63 yrs., occ.Nil, R/o Selu, Tq. Ambajogai

¶9

5. Shri Shrirang Govindrao Pathade, age : 67 years, occ.Nil, R/o Warwati, Tq. Ambajogai

¶10

6. Shri Baliram Nivrutti Lomte, Age : 70 yrs., Occ.Nil, R/o Khadakpura, Ambajogai

¶11

7. Shri Shaikh Ismail Sheikh Papamiya, age : 65 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai

¶12

8. Shri Sahebrao s/o Gopalrao Kendre, age Kendrewadi, Tq. Ambajogai, All Dist. Beed ..PETITIONERS

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

¶15

1. The State of Maharashtra, Thro Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶16

2. Beed Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha, Beed thro Its Chief Executive Officer, R/o Jalna road, Beed

¶17

3. Collector, Beed ..RESPONDENTS

¶18

Mr Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1.

¶19

CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶20

 DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009.

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.]

¶22

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the
consent of learned Counsel for the parties this
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶23

2.A prayer is made in this petition for issuance of
a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 Chief
Executive Officer, Beed Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari
Sanstha, Beed to pay the amount of difference of
gratuity along with interest as per the order dated
3.2.2007 issued by the competent authority/Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Latur, to the petitioners.
The petitioners have also prayed for directing
respondent no.2 – Chief Executive Officer to pay costs
of this petition which the petitioners quantify at Rs.

¶24

¶25

50,000/-.

¶26

3.During the course of arguments, Mr Bhavthankar,
learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before
us that pursuant to the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by
the competent authority – Assistant Commissioner of
Labour, Latur, necessary recovery certificates have
been obtained and have been tendered to the Collector
i.e. Respondent no.3 for recovering the amount from
respondent no.2 in accordance with law. It also
appears that pursuant to the notice issued by this
Court, respondents no.2 & 3 though they are served are
not represented by any Counsel. Shri Bhavthankar,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, urged
before us to direct the Collector to effect the
recovery pursuant to the recovery certificates within
certain stipulated period. In the light of the
limited nature of the relief which the petitioners now
seek i.e. Of directing the Collector to recover the
amount within a stipulated period and no substantive
relief is prayed for against respondent no.2 as per
prayer clauses (B) and (C), we deem it appropriate to
decide this petition though respondents no.2 & 3 have
not been issued with notice of final disposal of this
petition.

¶27

4.Undisputedly the recovery certificates, though
submitted by the petitioners have not been acted upon
by the Collector inasmuch as the Collector has not
taken any effective steps for recovering the said
amount from respondent no.2. The claim of the
petitioners has been adjudicated and an order thereof

¶28

has been passed on 3.2.2007 by the competent
authority. We, therefore, direct the respondent no.3
– Collector to effect recovery pursuant to the
recovery certificates submitted by the petitioners
within eight weeks from today, in accordance with law.

¶29

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms
with no order as to costs.

¶30

//Authenticated copy//

¶31

(A.M. Joshi), Pvt. Secretary to Honourable Judge

Tarachand Jagannath Pardeshi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarachand Jagannath Pardeshi and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalawati Tukaram Kurhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Chintaman Patil Vs the State of Mah

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramchandra Devidasrao Deshmukh Vs Governer Shri S G Jamirji the State of Mah and Ors.

Dhanraj Nawalrai Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Sureshchandra Surana Vs the Union of India and Anr.