Disposed

Suresh Tukaram More v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC12 Sept 2018WP/11090/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-payment of gratuity for a suspension period pending criminal case. Court directed the Judicial Magistrate before whom the criminal case is pending to decide the benefits matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to the Judicial Magistrate before whom criminal case RCC No.1060/2007 is pending to decide the case regarding benefits for the suspension period expeditiously within s

Suresh Tukaram More Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

928wp11090o17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11090 OF 2017

¶5

SURESH TUKARAM MORE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Nagarsoge Sahebrao A. AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri S.M.Ganachari. Advocate for Respondent 2 : Shri S.P.Urgunde.

¶9

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶10

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 12^th September, 2018

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

1 Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶14

2 He invited our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No.8247/2013. It was submitted before this Court that the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 02.04.2007 on the ground that one criminal case is pending against him and thereafter, he stood retired on 30.06.2007. The grievance of the Petitioner was with regard to the non payment of certain service benefits to him.

¶15

3 Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the Division Bench disposed of the said petition with the directions to the Respondents to release gratuity and

¶16

2 928wp11090o17

¶17

retiral benefits as admissible in law to the Petitioner, within a stipulated period of six months and then, the Petitioner was permitted to submit an application to the Respondents for the benefits accrued during the period April, 2007 to June, 2007. It was admitted before this Court that the Petitioner was already paid provisional pension and he would be entitled to receive the amount of gratuity and other retiral benefits. Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the application if such an application is submitted by the Petitioner.

¶18

4 Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted an application to Respondent No.2 on 16.02.2015. The Authority concerned by order dated 18.10.2016 released certain benefits. It is not in dispute that certain amount of gratuity and difference thereof to the tune of Rs.1,88,100/- is already paid to the Petitioner on 01.12.2014. The difference in pension amount as per the sixth pay commission for the period January, 2015 till December, 2015 to the tune of Rs.3747/- per month and Rs.7494/- per month from January, 2016 onwards is also paid to the Petitioner. However, the Authority expressed it's inability to take a decision insofar as the period from April, 2007 to June, 2007 is concerned as this period was suspension period and the criminal case was pending.

¶19

5 Now, the decision of the Authority is on merits and the reason is also assigned for the inability to take a decision insofar as the said suspension period is concerned. Considering this position, we are of the

¶20

3 928wp11090o17

¶21

opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom the criminal case bearing RCC No.1060/2007 is pending. This direction would meet the ends of justice and would cause no prejudice to the parties.

¶22

5 Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class before whom RCC No.1060/2007 is pending, shall decide the said case, if it is not already decided till date, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within SIX MONTHS from today.

¶23

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )

¶24

kps

Suresh Tukaram More v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Tukaram More v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Manish Dharsibhai Parmar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income TAX-RANGE-2, Aurangabad

Ahmed Mohib Syed Vs the Union of India and Others

Dr Sudarshan Babarao Thakare and Others Vs Jawahar Medical Foundation Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Jagdish Chintaman Khodake Vs Head Master Shrimati R G Mali Primaryvidyamandir Dhule and Others

Gajanan Mastya Vyawasai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its President Dattu Nivrutti Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Mastya Vyawasai Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. through Its President Dattu Nivrutti Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others