Dismissed

Kashinath Piraji Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018WP/852/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the finalisation, sanction, and release of pensionary benefits. The court directed the respondents to determine the payable amount considering the petitioner's liability and ordered payment within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to finalise payable amount within eight weeks and pay pension/benefits within three months.

Kashinath Piraji Kamble Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

4-wp.852.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.852 OF 2012

¶4

Kashinath Piraji Kamble..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Respondent

¶8

Mr.N.P.Patil-Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioner

¶9

Mr.S.B.Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1

¶10

Mr.Ajinkya Deshmukh, Advocate h/f. Mr.A.V.Hon, Advocate
for respondent nos.2 to 4

¶11

 CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2018

¶12

PER COURT

¶13

The petitioner seeks direction against the

¶14

respondents to finalise, sanction and release all the
pensionary benefits to him.

¶15

2.Mr.Patil, the learned Counsel for the

¶16

petitioner, submits that during the pendency of the

¶17

2 4-wp.852

¶18

Writ Petition, the inquiry has been completed and the
liability of the petitioner is reduced to
Rs.41,621/-. An affidavit is filed by the respondents
to the effect that 90% pension is already sanctioned
and disbursed to the petitioner and only 10% amount
is remained to be paid. He submits that because of
the recoveries of the petitioner, the full pension
was not sanctioned.

¶19

3.The petitioner has placed on record the
report submitted by the Block Development Officer to
the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad,
Latur, dated 11.01.2008.

¶20

4.The matter is pending since 2012. By this

¶21

time, the authority must have come to a conclusion.

¶22

5.In the circumstances, the respondents shall

¶23

finalise the amount payable to the petitioner, after
considering the liability, as determined by the
authority – Block Development Officer, within eight
weeks from today. Thereafter, the respondents shall

¶24

3 4-wp.852

¶25

make payment of the admissible amounts of Provident
fund, gratuity, the other retiral benefits and the
pension, after considering the recovery to be made by
them, as determined by the competent authority,

¶26

within a period of three months.

¶27

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed

¶28

of. No costs.

¶29

kbp

Kashinath Piraji Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Piraji Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Vinod Ninu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kedarnath Dwarkadas Mantri Vs Municipal Council , Ambad

Addl Registrar High Court Abad Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Sudhakar Sanduji Gandhile Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation through the Chief Executive Officer Mumbai

Mohammad Junaid Shaikh Usman Pinjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nandkishor Damodar Upasani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others