Allowed

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC15 Dec 2020WP/2031/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court disposed of the matter by accepting a proposal from respondent No. 2 to pay retirement dues in instalments over six months and directed the payment along with permissible interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed payment of retirement dues in six monthly instalments as per proposal X; directed payment of interest as permissible under law and rules.

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

wp2031.19.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2031/2019

¶5

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh,
aged about 61 Yrs., Occ. Retired,
R/o Shastri Square, Dhamangaon Railway,
Dist. Amravati 444 709.

¶6

 ..Petitioner.

¶7

..Vs..

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai -32.

¶9

2.Municipal Council, Dhamangaon
Railway, through its Chief Officer,
Dhamangaon Railway, Dist. Amravati
444 709. ..Respondents.

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Alok Daga, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri M.G. Rathi, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶11

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE , JJ.
DATED:- 15.12.2020

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

¶13

1. Heard Shri Alok Daga, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.M.

¶14

Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and Shri M.G. Rathi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

¶15

2. Rule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶16

2 wp2031.19.odt

¶17

consent.

¶18

3.This petition seeks a direction to respondent No.2 for making
payment of retiral dues as per Annexure “B” to the petitioner along
with interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner. Today, a
true copy of the communication received by Shri Milind Rathi, learned
Advocate for respondent No.2 is placed on record. It is marked “X”
for the purpose of identification. It states that respondent No.2 is
willing to make the whole payment as per the details given
thereunder. It further states that the entire payment of retiral dues
shall be made in instalments within a period of six months. The
proposal is acceptable to learned Advocate for the petitioner. But, he
submits that interest should also be paid to the petitioner.

¶19

4.Since proposal is acceptable to the petitioner, we are of the view
that this petition can be disposed of in terms of document “X” so far as
the payment of the retiral dues is concerned. As regards payment of
interest, we are of further opinion that same can be paid as per rules.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in terms of the proposal given vide
document “X”. We further direct that the entire payment of the dues
be made as per the schedule in document “X” along with such interest
as may be permissible in law and applicable rules within a period of

¶20

3 wp2031.19.odt

¶21

six months from the date of the order. Rule accordingly. No costs.

¶22

 JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

Digitally signed by Nilesh Nilesh Tambaskar Tambaskar Date: 2020.12.1612:06:57 +0530

¶24

Tambaskar.

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Prabhakar Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai 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

Naseem Ahmed Habib Ahmed (in Jail) Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary, Home Dep. Mantralaya, MUMBAI-32 and 2 Others

Arun S/O Rambhau Kokwar Vs Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Union of India and 4 Others. Vs Jagdishprasad Pannalal ....

Shree Narayanji Agency through Proprietor Karan S/O Bharatbhusan Budhraja Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Food and Drug Department, Mumbai and Others

Rupendrasingh @ Mickky S/O Balwirsingh Bakshi Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Sadar Distnagpur and Another

Amar Devanand Patil Vs State of Mah. Thr. Deputy Inspector General of Prison, Eastern Region, Nagpur and Another