Dismissed

Waman Shankar Landge v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bombay HC18 Jul 2019WP/354/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by an ex-employee seeking commutation of pension. The Court held that under Rule 14B of the Pension Rules, the department was entitled to withhold finalisation of pension due to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner during his service, thus precluding commutation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Waman Shankar Landge Vs Municipal Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

3 wp 354 of 2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2018

¶4

Waman Shankar Landge

¶5

…Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

¶8

…
Respondent

¶9

Ms. Vidhula S. Patil, for Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Pratibha Shelke with Ms. Sheetal Metakari, for Respondent.

¶11

Mr. Waman S. Landge, Petitioner present.

¶12

CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 18th JULY, 2019

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.The Petitioner is an ex-employee of the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai. He was initially engaged as a Security Officer. During his service, he was
faced with the departmental chargesheet, which resulted into punishment of
withholding of an increment with permanent effect. His appeal against the order of
punishment failed. He crossed the age of superannuation on 31st December, 2010.

¶16

The Respondent did not grant final pension on the ground that while he was in
service, a criminal case for offences punishable under Section 420, 408, 418 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was instituted against him. The department

¶17

SSP 1/3

¶18

3 wp 354 of 2018.doc

¶19

therefore, granted provisional pension. The Petitioner’s request for commutation of
the pension was rejected. Hence this Petition.

¶20

2.We are informed that the Petitioner had raised industrial dispute for non
releasing of the gratuity. In the present Petition, we are only concerned with the
Petitioner’s request for commutation of pension.

¶21

3.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we notice that in terms of
Rule 14B of the Pension Rules of the Corporation, in view of the pendency of the
criminal case instituted while the employee was in service, it is open for the
department not to finalize his pension. As a corollary, till the pension is finalized, the
Petitioner cannot claim commutation of pension. His request for granting
commutated pension is therefore, not justified.

¶22

4.During the course of the arguments, both the sides have some doubts about
the quantum of provisional pension. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that according to the Petitioner’s information, the department has slashed his
provisional pension by 40% which is the commutation component. Prima facie it
would appear that if the Department has not allowed the commutation of the pension,
the deduction from his pension availability of such commutated value of the pension
would not be permissible. However, no facts are presented before us for final opinion,

¶23

nor there is any prayer in this respect. If the Petitioner has any grievance with respect
to this, it would be open for the Petitioner to bring to the notice of the authorities and

¶24

SSP 2/3

¶25

3 wp 354 of 2018.doc

¶26

if the grievance remains unresolved, to take further steps as available in law. With

¶27

these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶28

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶29

( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

¶30

SSP

Waman Shankar Landge v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Waman Shankar Landge v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Vasant Patil Vs Maharshtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.

Mr. Pranav Sudhir Chandrachood Vs Ms. Samradnyee Pranav Chandrachood

Kum. Mayur Samir Verma , through Natural Guardian Father Shri. Samir Verma Vs Maharashtra State Eletricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Chandrashekhar v. Pillai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lina Y. Maneklal Vs Ashutosh Y. Maneklal and 9 Ors.

Mr. Badruddin Abbas Patel Vs Mr. Pandurang Damodar Bhoir