This high court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of a delayed gratuity payment order and directed the employer to refund a recovered amount and pay 18% interest on delayed benefits.
Refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- granted; employer directed to pay 18% interest on delays and award costs against concerned personnel within 60 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:6960-DB
901-WP-1289-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1289 OF 2020
Laxman Mangusing Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent No. 1
Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to
4 and 6
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of parties.
2.The Petitioner has put forthwith prayer
clauses ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ as under:
B.To quash and set aside the impugned
gratuity payment order dated 28.1.2019
issued by Deputy Chief Accounts Officer
(I), Maharashtra Jivan Pradhikaran, CIDCO
Bhawan, Navi Mumbai to the extent of
recover the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in
view of the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the writ petition and in the
interest of justice.
C.To pay 18% interest against delayed
payment against the following heads as (1)
Pension, (2) General Provident Fun 90%, (3)
General Provident Fund 10%, (4) Gut Vima
Page 1 of 4
901-WP-1289-2020.odt
Yojana, (5) Leave encashment, (6) Gratuity,
(7) Commutation 40%. (8) Dearness Allowance
in view of the facts and circumstances
mentioned in the writ petition and in the
interest of justice.
D.To direct respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to
inquire into the delayed payment of
pensionary benefits of the petitioner and
to take appropriate action against the
concerned persons who are responsible for
delayed payment of the petitioner and
impose cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the
concerned persons and said cost to pay to
the petitioner from the pockets of
concerned persons in the interest of
justice.
3.The Petitioner has specifically averred in the
pleadings that he is seeking interest on the unpaid
amounts.
4.The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant
Stores Keeper on 12.11.1979 and after completing 38
years and 8 months, he superannuated on 30.06.2018. By
an order dated 28.01.2019 passed by the Respondent –
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, the amount of gratuity
was computed at Rs. 3,35,105/-. An amount of Rs.
1,00,000/-, admittedly, has been recovered from the
gratuity amount on the ground that the Petitioner was
inadvertently paid excess amount under the head of
Page 2 of 4
901-WP-1289-2020.odt
‘time bound promotion’ benefit. It is conceded that no
undertaking was taken from the Petitioner. It is also
uncontroverted that the recovery order has been issued
after the retirement of the Petitioner.
5.In view of the above, the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors Vs.
Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Syed
Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC
475, the Petitioner’s case is eligible for grant of
refund of the amount.
6.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is
allowed.
7.In so far as the delay caused in making
payments, the employer Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran
shall calculate the exact delay caused under the
various heads and shall be duty bound to calculate the
statutory interest component to be paid to the
Petitioner, as a part of the arrears. Let such arrears
be paid to the Petitioner within a period of 60 days
from today.
Page 3 of 4
901-WP-1289-2020.odt
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.
(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)Malani
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of a gratuity amount recovered after retirement based on insufficient undertaking.
Whether the employer is liable to pay statutory interest on delayed pensionary payments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq MasihApplied¶27
State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334 · Who else cites this
Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of BiharApplied¶27
Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others, 2009 (3) SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Laxman Mangusing Chavan
The State Of Maharashtra
Ravindra V. Ghuge
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court