Allowed

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri v.a.Thomas v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2014WP/2075/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side allowed a writ petition seeking Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity for the petitioner's late father. The Court directed payment of the gratuity amount with 6% interest, overriding the Railway administration's refusal based on retention of quarters.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Death-Cum-Retirement-Gratuity of Rs. 56,672 with 6% interest per annum from 1st March 1990.

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2075.02.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 of 2002

¶5

Mr. V.E. Anthony substituted by Legal heir Mr. V.A. Thomas working as Motorman Central Railway, Mumbai CST, Mumbai.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Union of India & ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. D.V. Gangal a/w. Ms. Suchitra Kamble a/w. Ms. Vaishali Agane for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent UOI.

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ .

¶12

17^th July, 2014.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

By way of present petition the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent-railway administration to pay the amount of Rs. 56,672/- with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f 1^st March, 1990, towards Death-cum-Retirement-Gratuity due to his father. The petitioner has been substituted in place of his father who died on 6th October, 2006.

¶15

The Central Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 25th August, 2001

¶16

2/3

¶17

wp2075.02.sxw

¶18

in Original Application No.7/2001 observed that in case the writ petition in respect of regularisation of quarter pending before the High Court succeeds, the case can be considered afresh keeping in view the subsequent facts. The Tribunal was of the view that no case was made out for issuing directions to the respondent-railway administration to release the amount of DCRG amounting to Rs. 56,672/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1st March, 1990 till date.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case to direct the railway administration to release the amount of gratuity in favour of the petitioner with interest. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that other brothers of the petitioner have filed affidavit in this Court that they do not have any objection to release the said amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the Railway submits that as father did not hand over the possession of quarters, the gratuity was withheld under the Railway Pension Rules, 1991 . The learned Counsel submits that in view of this subsequent development and the view this Court would adopt in Writ Petition No. 1767/2000, appropriate orders need to be passed. Learned Counsel submits that petitioner has failed to make out a case for payment of gratuity amount with interest.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that as the petitioner did not vacate the quarters, the amount of gratuity due and payable to the petitioner's father was withheld. In the peculiar facts of the case amount of gratuity would be paid to the petitioner but without interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that rules provide for payment of such amount with interest. The

¶22

3/3 wp2075.02.sxw

¶23

Central Administrative Tribunal had already observed in the order that payment of the gratuity amount with interest from 1st March, 1990 would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

¶24

In view of the observations made by us while deciding writ petition 1767/2000 we are of the view that amount of gratuity shall be paid to the petitioner V.A. Thomas with interest. Considering all these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition No. 2075/2002 and pass following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petition is allowed.

¶27

The respondents are directed to pay the amount of Death-CumRetirement-Gratuity to the tune of Rs. 56,672/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1st March, 1990 till the realisation of amount.

¶28

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶29

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶30

L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri v.a.Thomas v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri v.a.Thomas v. the Union of India and Ors.

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

Mr. Ratnasen Kisan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Vitthal Ramchandra Shinde Vs Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Dept and Ors. Vs Devidas Popatrao Kulkarni

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.