Partly allowed

Vasant S/O Narayan Borkar and Oths v. Bhandara Distt. Co-Op. Agri. Gramin Multipurpose Dev. Bank Ltd. Thr. Its Manager and Oths

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012WP/1855/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted the petitioners' undisputed entitlement to additional Dearness Allowance, gratuity, leave encashment, and Provident fund contributions but noted the Respondents' severe financial distress that prevents immediate payment, allowing execution of earlier orders against specific respondents.

What did the court decide?

Orders of earlier litigation against Respondents No. 1 and 2 are permitted for execution to recover dues; Court notes financial inability of respondents to pay directly.

Vasant S/O Narayan Borkar and Oths Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

161wp1855.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1855 OF 2011

¶5

(Vasant Narayan Borkar & Ors. vs. Bhandara District Cooperative Bank & Ors.)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JANUARY 16, 2012.

¶8

The matter is for final disposal. Heard Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Talmale, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Khanjode, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 5 and Kankale, learned AGP for respondents No. 4 & 6.

¶9

It is apparent and also not in dispute that the entitlement of the petitioners to receive the amounts towards additional Dearness Allowance as per index, gratuity, leave encashment and contribution towards Provident fund is recognized by orders of this Court dated 16.08.2010 passed on CAW No. 1032 of 2010 while disposing of Writ Petition No. 3251 of 2009. That writ petition was filed by these very petitioners for similar relief.

¶10

The petitioners have now worked out their individual entitlement and it is disclosed in para 11 of writ petition. The calculations and total amount recoverable by each petitioners as disclosed in said para is

¶11

2/3

¶12

161wp1855.11

¶13

not disputed before us.

¶14

Shri Talmale, learned counsel has pointed out the bad financial condition of those respondents. He is relying upon the facts and figures disclosed in CAW No. 3295 of 2011. That position is also not in dispute. As per para 7 of that Civil Application, the salaries of regular staff consisting of 64 employees have not been paid since July 2011. The respondents have total five accounts with District Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Limited, and in all these accounts total amount lying to their credit is Rs.24,922.70 paise. It is, therefore, clear that Respondents No. 1 and 2 are not in a position to shoulder the liability towards dues of its members – petitioners.

¶15

Insofar as Respondent No.3 is concerned, Respondent No. 3 is an independent Cooperative Society and the petitioners are not its employees. This Court has in earlier round of litigation on 16.08.2010, in para 6(c) found that it was not necessary to express any opinion about liability of the Apex Bank i.e. Respondent No. 3 to pay these amounts to Respondents No. 1 & 2. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not pointed out before this Court that they can claim these amounts from Respondent No. 3 or any other amounts due and recoverable from Respondent No. 3.

¶16

In this situation, the entitlement of the petitioners as disclosed in para 11 of the petition to respective amounts is accepted by this Court as it is, being not disputed by any of the respondents. The petitioners

¶17

3/3

¶18

161wp1855.11

¶19

are permitted to execute the orders of this Court against Respondents No. 1 & 2 and recover the amounts due to them in accordance with law.

¶20

Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

*GS.

Vasant S/O Narayan Borkar and Oths v. Bhandara Distt. Co-Op. Agri. Gramin Multipurpose Dev. Bank Ltd. Thr. Its Manager and Oths

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasant S/O Narayan Borkar and Oths v. Bhandara Distt. Co-Op. Agri. Gramin Multipurpose Dev. Bank Ltd. Thr. Its Manager and Oths

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

Sumit S/O Marotisingh Bilgaye Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Pratap S/O Dhanraj Naikda Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Buldhana and Ors.

Radheshyam S/O Mahadeorao Zade Vs the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and 2 Others

M/S Hotel Needos Pvt. Ltd, Thr. Its Managind Director Shri Rajeev Jaiswal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Home and Another

Mushtaq Ahmed Quereshi S/O Abdul Rahman Quereshi and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corp. Amravati Thr Commissioner and Anr.

Shri Gajanan S/O Govindrao Dhakate Vs the General Manager (Operation), Ballapur Area, Western Coalfields Ltd.