Disposed

Azam Karim Shaikh v. the M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai through Its Divisional Controller and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Nov 2013WP/8513/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions for releasing pensionary benefits based on a prior High Court judgment that mandated a refund of retrospectively received gratuity and provident fund. The Court directed the respondents to process the claim upon the petitioner's deposit of those amounts, along with interest, in accordance with the Pension Scheme, 1995.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner must deposit gratuity, provident fund, and interest; upon deposit, respondents to extend monetary benefits per the Pension Scheme, 1995.

Azam Karim Shaikh Vs the M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp8513.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.8513 OF 2010

¶6

Azam Karim Shaikh,
Age-62 years, Occu:Pensioner,
R/o-Laxminagar, Masjid Galli,
Kopargaon, Tq-Kopargaon,
Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai, through the Divisional Controller, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist-Ahmednagar

¶10

2) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32,

¶11

3) Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension), Sub-Regional Office, Nasik, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, P-11, Bhavishnidhi Bhavan, M.I.D.C. Area, Satpur, Nasik. ...RESPONDENTS

¶12

...

¶13

 Shri.P.S. Koshti Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri.B.S.Deshmukh Advocate for Respondent No.1.
 Shri.R.P.Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2.
 Shri.K.B.Chaudhari Advocate for Respondent No.3.
 ...

¶14

wp8513.10

¶15

¶16

CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶17

 DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER, 2013

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1.The Petitioner is praying for issuing

¶20

directions to Respondents for releasing pensionary
benefits and other benefits to the Petitioner in

¶21

view of the Judgment delivered by this Court in
Writ Petition No.1338 of 2005 decided on 18th
July, 2008.

¶22

2.This Court (CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND N.D.

¶23

DESHPANDE, JJ.), while disposing of Writ Petition
No.1338 of 2005, has observed in concluding
paragraph of the Judgment, thus:

¶24

"....The case of the Petitioner for

¶25

pensionshallaccordinglybe

¶26

considered and decided within three

¶27

wp8513.10

¶28

¶29

months and pension be paid to the

¶30

Petitioner within three months

¶31

thereafter. The Petitioner shall

¶32

refund the amount of retiral
benefits which the Petitioner has
received i.e. gratuity and provident
fund along with simple interest at
the rate of 9 per cent per annum
from 18.2.2002 till the date of his

¶33

retirement. The respondents at the
time of payment of the pension shall
call upon the petitioner to refund

¶34

the reitral benefits received by him

¶35

along with the rate of interest as

¶36

has been stated by us above and on

¶37

such refund of the retiral benefits
and the interest, the petitioner

¶38

would be entitled to be paid the
pension and the arrears of pay from

¶39

18.2.2002 till the date of his
superannuation. The respondents may

¶40

wp8513.10

¶41

¶42

also consider adjusting the amount

¶43

of retiral benefits which the

¶44

petitioner has received together

¶45

with amount of interest towards the
payment of arrears of the amount of
pension and may not actually call

¶46

upon the petitioner to refund the
amount."

¶47

3. The Petitioner has received the arrears

¶48

of pay and all other monetary benefits in terms of
the order passed by the High Court.

¶49

4.The Petitioner states that he is not in
a position to redeposit the amount received by him

¶50

towards gratuity and provident fund along with
interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from
18.2.2002 till the date of his retirement. The
learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3

¶51

states that unless the Petitioner complies with
the provisions of the Pension Scheme, 1995, the

¶52

wp8513.10

¶53

¶54

benefits cannot be extended to him.

¶55

5.If the Petitioner proceeds to deposit the

¶56

amount as directed by the High Court, with
Respondent No.3, his claim for pension may be
considered and the Respondent No.3 shall extend
the monetary benefits in accordance with the
scheme. With these directions, Writ Petition

¶57

stands disposed of.

¶58

[A.I.S. CHEEMA,J.] [R.M. BORDE,J.]
asb/NOV13

Azam Karim Shaikh v. the M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai through Its Divisional Controller and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azam Karim Shaikh v. the M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai through Its Divisional Controller and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Shivaji Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Avinash Abhiman Wale Vs Managing Director, Mah. State Power Generation Co. Ltd.

Parvati Kishanrao Phad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mithun Dagdu Dongre and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vijaykumar Marutirao Dhondge Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Nanded

The Chief Executive Officer and Member, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad,Hingoli and an Vs Smita Charansingh Rathod