Remanded

Dudhram S/O Libasi Kowe v. Zp, Nagpur Thr. the C.E.O. and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2012WP/1628/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the withholding of retiral dues including pension upon the petitioner's retirement. The High Court refrained from reopening disciplinary proceedings but remanded the matter to the Divisional Commissioner to allow the petitioner to be heard on the computation of benefits and investigate the impact of unauthorized absence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be heard by the Divisional Commissioner on retiral benefits computation and unauthorized absence impact;

Dudhram S/O Libasi Kowe Vs Zp, Nagpur Thr… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

0908wp1628.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1628 OF 2012

¶5

Dudhram Libai Kowe Vs. Z. P. Nagpur thr Z. P. Nagpur & Ano. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶6

Shri A. H. Jamal Adv for petitioner. Shri Majid Sheikh Adv for respondents.

¶7

CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M . T. JOSHI JJ.

¶8

DATED: 9^th AUGUST, 2012.

¶9

The Writ Petition is directed against the action withholding

¶10

the retiral dues in the form of provident fund, gratuity and pension.

¶11

It appears from the record that the petitioner has served as Clerk under the Zilla Parishad Nagpur. It is his case that he was working since 1971 on regular basis and retired on 31^st August 2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. In this situation, it was incumbent upon the Chief Executive Officer to immediately take steps to release all retiral benefits including the pension.

¶12

Reliance is placed upon the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and equally the Chief Executive Officer relied upon the Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1981.

¶13

0908wp1628.12

¶14

¶15

We make it clear that we are not inclined to reopen the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which stand concluded by an order of the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur, dated 29^th March 2008. Therefore, the petitioner will not be allowed to agitate that the period of absence from duty referred to in the impugned order is liable to be treated as unauthorized absence in service.

¶16

However, having accepting the period of absence from 25^th December 2004 to 16^th January 2005, whether the petitioner could be deprived of the retiral benefit and pension and by relying on Rule 47 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 or on Maharashtra Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1981, which need to be construed harmoniously, so as not to deprive the petitioner of the retiral benefit including pension for the services rendered and the benefit of pension for a period of unauthorized absence, are matters which need to be decided by Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur. In the absence of any power to forfeit the past services and deprive the employees like the petitioner of their dues for past services by treating to be dies-non the least that is expected is that the petitioner be heard and thereafter any orders be passed.

¶17

We would, therefore, refer this matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur who shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to place all relevant material on record and then conclude the inquiry claiming retiral benefits and pension and thereafter pass a

¶18

0908wp1628.12

¶19

¶20

reasoned order as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two months from today. We keep all contentions open only in relation to the computation and payment of retiral benefits and pension.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. No costs.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

svk

Dudhram S/O Libasi Kowe v. Zp, Nagpur Thr. the C.E.O. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudhram S/O Libasi Kowe v. Zp, Nagpur Thr. the C.E.O. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hans Shikshan Krida Wa Vyayam Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its President and Anr. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 4 Ors.

Kirankumar Sheshrao Rathod and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Thr Its Secretary, and Ot

Dr. Gopal S/O Ranilalji Bhutada Vs Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, through Its President Mr. Ghanshyamdas Sangidas Panpalia and 8 Others

Nallni Wd/O Satishchandra Bute and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Town Planning Department and 2 Others

Namdeo S/O Domaji Dhabale Vs the Union of India, Department of Telecommunication, Thr. Advisor (Human Resource Deptt.) and 4 Oth

Gokulsingh S/O Shivsingh Lakhwal and 2 Ors. Vs the Edun. Officer (Sec.) Zp, Buldhana and 2 Ors.