Dismissed

Ashok Kisan Jetithar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2023WP/15947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interest on belatedly paid gratuity, pension, and GPF. The High Court rejected the writ petition, finding no error in the tribunal's decision that the claim for interest on pension and gratuity was barred by limitation due to a six-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no costs awarded.

Ashok Kisan Jetithar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

47-wp-15947-2022.doc

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 15947 OF 2022

¶5

Ashok Kisan Jetithar … Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through the Additional Secretary Revenue and Forest Department and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Rahul B. Vijaymane for the Petitioner. Ms. Nisha M. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &

¶10

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : 15 FEBRUARY, 2023

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was paid the amount of gratuity, leave encashment and pension belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the GPF amount is also paid belatedly. The petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of gratuity, leave encashment, pension and GPF.

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2023.02.18 10:59:53 +0530

¶15

The Original Application was disposed of by the tribunal with observation that the applicant’s claim for interest on the

¶16

2 / 2 47-wp-15947-2022.doc

¶17

payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment is barred by limitation and as such is rejected. So far as GPF is concerned, the petitioner was asked to move respondent no. 4 to claim interest on GPF within one months. It appears that the petitioner had thereafter approached the said Tehsildar for the grant of such claim of interests. The claim of interest of the petitioner is rejected. Petitioner can assail order of the Tahsildar before the appropriate forum.

¶18

We do not find any error in the judgment of the tribunal rejecting the claim of interest on the delayed payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment. The said amount was already paid to the petitioner in the year 2012 and the OA was filed only in the year 2017. In light of that no case for interference with the order of the Tribunal is made out.

¶19

Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Ashok Kisan Jetithar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kisan Jetithar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. 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

Kishore Bhanji Somaiya Vs the Chief Secretary and Ors. and Vimla Kishore Somaiya and 2 Others (Applicant)

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 6 Ors.

Nagrik Chetna Manch Thr. Life Member Dr. Sushma Jaydeep Date Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Suresh Govind Bhatt Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation

Suresh Kitkul Patil and Anr. Vs the Gen. Manager, Central Railway , Mumbai Cst. and Ors.

Vijay Bajrang Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Ministry of Home Dept. and Ors.