Disposed

Smt. Ratnamala Wd/O. Dilip Harde, and Others v. the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, West Zone Maha. Circle, Mumbai, and Others

Bombay HC15 Jul 2016WP/5978/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the claim for terminal benefits and interest by the legal heirs of Dilip Harde. The court directed the petitioners to make a representation concerning interest under Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the respondents to process the claim within eight weeks, keeping the eligibility questions open.

What did the court decide?

Leave to petitioners to make representation for interest; direction to respondents to process and release due interest within eight weeks.

Smt. Ratnamala Wd/O. Dilip Harde, and Others… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

Order

1507wp5978.15

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 5978/2015.

¶6

Smt. Ratnamala Dilip Harde and others.

¶7

VERSUS-

¶8

The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Mumbai and others.

¶9

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶10

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶11

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.

¶12

DATE : JULY 15, 2016.

¶13

Heard Shri M.L. Mourya, learned Counsel

¶14

for the petitioners, Ms. U.R. Tanna, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Ms. M.R. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.8, for some time.

¶15

One Dilip Harde expired on 15.12.2013 while in the employment of respondent nos. 5 to 7. Claim by his legal heirs is for expeditious payment of terminal benefits along with interest. 3. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, certain amounts have been paid to the petitioners.

Order

1507wp5978.15

Shri Mourya, learned Counsel for

¶20

petitioners upon instructions has restricted his arguments only to entitlement of petitioners to claim interest.

¶21

Though respondent nos. 5 to 7 have filed reply affidavit, we find the same insufficient. Perusal of record show that on 25.04.2014, the Superintending Engineer, BSNL has written to the General Manager on some inquiry report and it appears that an ex-post facto approval of CGMT for regularization for promotion to the post of Driver cadre/grade was sought for. In one more communication dated 28.06.2014 sent by the office of the Superintending Engineer to the Executive Engineer on the subject of regularization of appointment as driver of 7 motor drivers appointed by the Civil Wing, a question has been posed and guidance is sought, whether the pension and other benefits accrued to the officials as per rules should be processed or be held up till the completion of the inquiry. It is pointed out that further instructions were then awaited from PCE(C) Mumbai.

¶22

The respondents- employer has filed reply

Order

1507wp5978.15

affidavit pointing out that necessary papers were made available by the petitioners only in October, 2015. Thus according to them, there is no delay in processing the papers.

¶27

The delay to be looked into is from December, 2013 till the date of release of payment i.e. June, 2016.

¶28

Parties before this Court are not in a position to explain the exact nature of inquiry which was then conducted or completed in the matter of promotion or then the scope or impact of that inquiry.

¶29

In this situation, instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court we grant petitioners leave to make appropriate representation pointing out their entitlement to interest in terms of Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. If such representation is made within three weeks, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 to look into it in accordance with law within a period of next eight weeks.

¶30

If necessary, an opportunity of hearing should be extended to petitioners and if the petitioners are found entitled to receive interest, the same shall be released to them within next 8 weeks. Acceptance of

Order

1507wp5978.15

such interest shall not preclude the petitioners from challenging the correctness or otherwise of the same.

¶35

With these directions and keeping all points as to eligibility and entitlement to interest open, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE

Rgd.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that this judgment/order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment/order.

¶40

Uploaded by : R.G. Dhuriya. Uploaded on : 16.07.2016

Smt. Ratnamala Wd/O. Dilip Harde, and Others v. the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, West Zone Maha. Circle, Mumbai, and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ratnamala Wd/O. Dilip Harde, and Others v. the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, West Zone Maha. Circle, Mumbai, and Others

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

Shri. Gopal S/O. Shriram Singh Vs Chief Managing Director, Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur and Others

Shaikh Irfan Sahikh Israeel Vs the State of Maha., Thro. Its Secretary, Dept. of Tribal Welfare and Others

Pravin Rameshrao Parate Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Power of Energy, Mumbai and 2 Others

Bhuwaneshwar Bhauchand Pardhi and Another Vs Union of India through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Maroti S/O. Biraji Arewar, and Others Vs the Yashwantrao Chavan Maha. Open University, through Its Registrar, Dnyangangotri, and Others

M/S Jyoti and Surendra Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director, Shri Surendra Mohan Khurana Vs the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department, Ahmedabad and Others