Disposed

Julekhabi Mohd Yasin v. v T Bhukan and Others

Bombay HC11 Oct 2019CP/200/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the High Court noted that while the State authorities had finally complied with a 2000 writ order granting family pension to an elderly petitioner after 18 years of delay, the grievance was resolved. The Court utilized powers under Article 226 to mandate that pension claims be decided within eight weeks, with personal liability for erring officers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to authorities to dispose of pension claims within eight weeks; personal liability for officers causing delay; contempt petition dismissed as complaint satisfied.

Julekhabi Mohd Yasin Vs v T Bhukan and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

200.15cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2719 OF 2000

¶5

Julekhabi w/o Late Mohd. Yasin, Age: 75 years, Occu: Household, R/o. C/o. Jaher Khan Alias Khalu driver, Kazipura, Ta. Basmatnagar, Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Dr. V. T. Bhukan, The Superintendent, State Excise Office, Parbhani

¶8

Mr. Dinesh Raibhanji Patil, The Accountant General (A&E), Maharashtra State, Nagpur

¶9

Mrs Radhika Rastogi, Secretary, State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Ms Anagha Pedgaonkar, Advocate holding for Mrs Kalpalata Bharaswadkar, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A. B. Girase, G.P. for respondent/State; Mr A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶11

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶12

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 11th October, 2019

200.15cp

(2)

ORAL ORDER:

By a detailed order dated 11^th September, 2019, this Court had expressed its displeasure for the casual approach of the respondentsauthorities and at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that on an admitted fact that the family pension was not granted, the petitioner was required to knock the doors of this Court by filing writ petition in the year 2000 and then on a grievance of non-compliance of the order of this Court, the contempt petition is filed in the year 2015. When the petition was filed, the petitioner was of 60 years of age and when the contempt petition came up for orders before this Court, the petitioner is more than 80 years of age. This Court then directed the respondents-authorities to file affidavit-in-reply with a hope that better sense would prevail over the authorities.

¶18

Today, Mr Dhongade, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply and the annexure i.e. Exh.'A' collectively. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply and the documents placed on record at annexure show that the order of this Court is now duly complied with and the document i.e. the pension payment order dated 18^th September, 2019 is annexed to the affidavitin-reply. As such, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶19

200.15cp

¶20

(3)

¶21

Though the order of this Court is now duly complied with and the grievance of the petitioner no more survives, it only leaves us with a sour aftertaste of a sorry state of affairs and the apathetic approach of the authorities. A lady, in her advanced age was required to approach this Court for grant of family pension and this could have been the only source of financial assistance to the lady and that too a paltry amount of Rs.60/- and for that, the petitioner was required to file writ petition in the year 2000 and filed the contempt petition in the year 2015 and further was required to wait to get the fruits of the order of this Court for more than four years. We can only say that the authorities, had they acted with a little sensible, logical and sympathetic approach, the petitioner would not have been required to knock the doors of this Court time and again and to fight a legal battle for nearly 18 years.

¶22

The authorities are entitled to consider the cases on merits but that does not mean that the authorities can do it in their leisure time and delay the decision on issues like family pension under the guise of the procedural non-conformity. It is common knowledge that the benefit of family pension is some source of financial assistance to an employee or his dependents consequent to his retirement and there is certainly the legitimate expectation of any employee, who had worked for the institution/organization for sufficient length of period that he

¶23

(4)

¶24

200.15cp

¶25

would get his benefits within a reasonable period and for this benefit, the employee gives his contribution to the institution/organization for the entire period of service.

¶26

Treating this matter as an example, by invoking our power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we hereby direct the respondents-authorities that henceforth, the authorities will take all possible steps to see that the cases of pensionary benefits are decided within a reasonable period and not later than eight weeks i.e. two months from the date of receipt of the pension papers to the appropriate authorities. We further make it clear that if there is an inordinate delay and if for this delay, the officer of institution/organization or the officer from the office of the Accountant General is responsible, such erring officer would be held personally liable and will face actions including punitive action and the action covered under the service rules, and the liability to pay interest from own pocket, for the period delay caused due to him/her.

¶27

The copy of this order be forwarded to the office of the Accountant General, Maharashtra State, Nagpur, all the department heads of Maharashtra State, the Divisional Commissioners, the Collectors of the districts of Maharashtra, the Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner of Police at commissionerate level and the

¶28

200.15cp

¶29

(5)

¶30

Superintendent of Police of all the districts of the State of Maharashtra, and all pension processing authorities in the State.

¶31

Authenticated copy of this order also be supplied to learned Government Pleader to communicate this order to the department heads of the various departments of the State of Maharashtra.

¶32

The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶34

sjk

Julekhabi Mohd Yasin v. v T Bhukan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Julekhabi Mohd Yasin v. v T Bhukan 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

Sumit Prabhakar Petkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Azazkhan Ashrafkhan Pathan Vs Dinkar G Pawra Joint Commissioner the Schedueld Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee

Rajendra Bhau Hile Vs K P Vishwanatha the Vice Chancellor Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Another

Vasant Ramrao Jogdand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha Aurangabad through Its Secretary Y v Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pratap Ramrao More Vs Asim Kumar Gupta and Others