Netaji Keshav Shinde vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/808/2026. Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/810/2026. Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/811/2026. Ms. S. N. Deshmukh, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/812/2026. Mr. A. A. Naik, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/813/2026. Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/814/2026. Mr. S. B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/815/2026. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/1237/2026. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/1020/2026.

¶30

——————

¶31

Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar & Pravin S. Patil, JJ. Date: March 25, 2026

¶32

JUDGMENT (PER PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.):

¶33

2 of 9

¶34

Arjun

¶35

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶36

1. Civil Writ Petition No.1020 of 2026 is not on board. Taken on board.

¶37

2. As all these Writ Petitions raise identical issues, they are being heard and decided together. For the purpose of deciding the present matters, the facts of Civil Writ Petition No.808 of 2026 are taken into consideration.

¶38

3. The Petitioner has iled Civil Writ Petition No.808 of 2026 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an appropriate writ directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to recover the gratuity amount of Rs.6,10,958/- along with interest, and further to recover the amount payable in terms of the Order of the Controlling Authority Under Payment Of Gratuity Act & Judge, Labour Court No.2,

¶39

Kolhapur (“ Controlling Authority ”) as on 31st January 2026.

¶40

4. The details of the Writ Petitions are as follows:

¶41

Sr. WP No. Petitioner’s Date of Post Date of Gratuity Gratuity Gratuity + Date of Date of
No. Name Appointment Retirement (Entitled) (Paid) Interest Recovery Order in
Certificate Recovery
Application
(PGA)
1 808/2026 Shahaji Rajaram 01/06/1982 Jr. Clerk 31/03/2009 Rs.3,10,012/- Rs.1,41,825/- Rs.6,10,958/- 04/07/2024 12/04/2024
Sawant
2 810/2026 Sharad Panditrao 01/03/1988 Sr. Clerk 28/02/2017 Rs.7,16,361/- Rs.2,75,935/- Rs.11,37,211/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Powar
3 811/2026 Rajendra 15/02/1988 Jr. Clerk 31/01/2012 Rs.3,10,445/- Rs.1,62,600/- Rs.4,53,618/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Bhaskarrao
Kamble
4 812/2026 Prakash 16/11/1979 Watchm 30/06/2013 Rs.4,07,961/- Rs.1,89,915/- Rs.6,69,641/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Sakharam Patil -an
5 813/2026 Netaji Keshav 05/08/1987 Jr. Clerk 31/12/2018 Rs.5,65,243/- Rs.2,05,695/- Rs.9,24,966/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Shinde
6 814/2026 Shashikant 01/03/1988 Sr. Clerk 31/10/2018 Rs.8,23,984/- Rs.3,03,780/- Rs.12,79,437/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Ramchandra
Waghare
7 815/2026 Hindurao 05/10/1981 Mali 31/05/2016 Rs.5,56,742/- Rs.2,07,735/- Rs.9,40,675/- 13/03/2025 04/10/2024
Dnyanu Gadgil

¶42

3 of 9

¶43

Arjun

¶44

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶45

8 1237/2026 9 1020/2026	Anil Shankarrao Adurkar Gajanan Dadoba Powar	11/10/1972 15/10/1964	Superint -endent Superint -endent	31/01/2013 30/06/2004	Rs.10,85,815/- Rs.3,00,375/-	Rs.3,60,360/- Rs.1,42,725/-	Rs.23,17,582/- Rs.6,96,938/-	13/03/2025 13/03/2025	04/10/2024 04/10/2024

¶46

5. In response to the prayers made by the Petitioners, this Court issued notices to the Respondents, who have been duly served in the matters. Learned AGPs have appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Although Respondent No.3 has been duly served, none has appeared on its behalf in these matters.

¶47

6. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner was appointed with Respondent No.3-Corporation on 1st June 1982 and, after rendering service, superannuated on 31st March 2009. As per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“ Gratuity Act ”), he was entitled to a gratuity amount of Rs.3,10,012/-. However, he was paid only Rs.1,41,825/-, and an amount of Rs.1,68,187/- was due and payable.

¶48

7. In view of the above, the Petitioner iled an application, being Application (PGA) No.5 of 2020, before the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority, by Order dated 19th January 2022, allowed the said application and directed the Respondent No.3 to pay the gratuity amount to the Petitioner within a period of two months, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date it became due until its full realization.

¶49

4 of 9

¶50

Arjun

¶51

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶52

8. So also, a Recovery Certiicate dated 4th July 2024 was issued by the Controlling Authority to the efect that Collector of Kolhapur shall proceed to recover the amount from Respondent No.3-Corporation. Against the Recovery Certiicate, Respondent No.3 iled Civil Writ Petition No.13695 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13703 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13699 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13700 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13702 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13701 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13704 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13705 of 2024, Civil Writ Petition No.13706 of 2024 and Civil Writ Petition No.13974 of 2024. All these Petitions were heard and decided by this Court by a common Judgment and Order dated 22nd October 2024. While dismissing the Writ Petitions, this Court clariied that the amounts determined by the Controlling Authority shall be paid by Respondent No.3-Corporation within a period of 4 months from the date of the Order, and if they failed to pay that amounts, then it would be liable to pay compound interest. Accordingly, with this direction, the Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court.

¶53

9. It is the submission of Mr. Topkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that after passing of the Order by this Court, the Petitioners repeatedly approached to the Respondents and requested to release the amounts as directed by the Controlling Authority as well as by this Court. However, there was no positive response from

¶54

5 of 9

¶55

Arjun

¶56

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶57

Respondent No.3. Consequently, the Petitioners were constrained to approach again before this Court and prayed that action be initiated against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation Of Transfers And Prevention Of Delay In Discharge Of Oicial Duties Act, 2005 (“ Oicial Duties Act ”) for not releasing their amounts within a given time limit period.

¶58

10. The Petitioners have relied upon the provisions of Section 10 of the Oicial Duties Act . The same is reproduced as under:

¶59

“ 10. Disciplinary action .— (1) Every Government servant shall be bound to discharge his oicial duties and the oicial work assigned or pertaining to him most diligently and as expeditiously as feasible:

¶60

Provided that, normally no ile shall remain pending with any Government servant in the Department or Oice for more than seven working days:

¶61

Provided further that, immediate and urgent iles shall be disposed of as per the urgency of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably the immediate ile in one day or next day morning and the urgent ile in four days:

¶62

Provided also that, in respect of the iles not required to be referred to any other Department, the concerned Department shall take the decision and necessary action in the matter within forty-ive days and in respect of iles required to be referred to any other Department, decision and necessary action shall be taken within three months.

¶63

(2) Any wilful or intentional delay or negligence in the discharge of oicial duties or in carrying out the oicial work assigned or pertaining to such Government servant shall amount to dereliction of oicial duties and shall make such Government servant liable for appropriate disciplinary action

¶64

6 of 9

¶65

Arjun

¶66

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶67

under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 or any other relevant disciplinary rules applicable to such employee.

¶68

(3) The concerned competent authority on noticing or being brought to its notice any such dereliction of duties on the part of any Government servant, after satisfying itself about such dereliction on the part of such Government servant shall, take appropriate disciplinary action against such defaulting Government servant under the relevant disciplinary rules including taking entry relating to such dereliction of duty in the Annual Conidential Report of such Government servant. ”

¶69

11. It is the contention of the Petitioners that once the Order passed by the Controlling Authority has been conirmed by this Court, it is the duty of Respondent No.3 to comply with the said Order within the time stipulated by this Court or as per the provisions of the Oicial Duties Act. However, there is deliberate delay on the part of Respondent No.3. As a result, till date, the Order is not complied with, and thereby the Petitioners, who are legally entitled for the amounts, have been deprived of from the same.

¶70

12. In the light of the provisions of Section 10 of the Oicial Duties Act, we are satisied that, normally, any ile pending with a Government servant in any Department or Oice should be processed within a speciic period. More particularly, as per Section 10 of the Oicial Duties Act, a Government servant is bound to discharge his oicial duties, and the oicial work assigned or pertaining to him should be performed diligently and as expeditiously as feasible. It is

¶71

7 of 9

¶72

Arjun

¶73

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶74

further provided that no ile shall remain pending with any Government servant in a Department or Oice for more than seven working days. In the event of failure to perform these duties, disciplinary action under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1979 is contemplated against the Oicers who are at fault in the matter.

¶75

13. In the present case, what we observed that the Order of the Controlling Authority is dated 19th January 2022. The Recovery Certiicate was issued by the Controlling Authority on 4th July 2024, and thereafter, this Court conirmed the decision of the Controlling Authority & Recovery Certiicate by Order dated 22nd October 2024 and by exercising discretion, a period of 4 months was also granted. However, till date, there is no compliance of these Orders, which are unambiguous in nature.

¶76

14. Hence, considering the provisions of Section 10 of the Oicial Duties Act, we are prima facie satisied that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are at fault and action is required to be taken against them for gross negligence in performing their duties. However, learned AGP requested to grant one more opportunity to them in the matter, hence, we hereby made clear that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to comply with the Order of the Controlling Authority, as conirmed by this Court, within a period of 15 days from the date of production of this Order before the

¶77

8 of 9

¶78

Arjun

¶79

70-WP-808-2026.doc

¶80

Authority. If they failed to comply with the said Order, then action be

¶81

taken against them under Section 10(2) of the Oicial Duties Act.

¶82

15. With these directions, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of.