SHIVPRASAD Vs. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks payment of interest on account of delayed receipt of retirement benefits. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 09/07/1974 with the 5th respondent. He attained the age of superannuation on 31/08/2005. Shortly prior to his retirement, it is the case of the petitioner that he submitted all necessary documents on 10/12/2004 to enable preparation of his pension case. The pension papers were accordingly forwarded to the office of the Accountant General on 30/12/2005. The petitioner was informed by the Deputy Director of Education on 02/06/2005 that when he was so appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, he was aged more than 25 years and hence for being entitled to receive pension there had to be relaxation of age at the time of appointment. The proposal was accordingly returned to the Municipal Council. On 22/06/2005 the Municipal Council passed a resolution proposing to relax the age of appointment of the petitioner. Thereafter there was some communication between the Municipal Council and the office of the Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6316/2016 praying that he be granted pensionary benefits since no steps were taken by the concerned respondent after his retirement. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18/03/2008 with a direction to the Authority to take necessary decision within period of six weeks. Ultimately on 08/09/2008 the petitioner was informed that he was entitled to pensionary benefits. In these facts therefore the petitioner seeks grant of interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits to which he was entitled on 31/08/2005 but which he actually received on 08/09/2008.

(2.) Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay caused in granting pensionary benefits is on account of the inaction between the respondents interse. After the petitioner was appointed on 09/07/1974 he completed his service tenure on 31/08/2005 and at no point of time was any objection raised to the fact that when the petitioner was appointed he was beyond the age of 25 years. After the petitioner retired from service that issue was raised and the time taken by the respondents in resolving the same has delayed the release of pensionary benefits. It was his submission that the 5 th respondent who was the employer was responsible for preparing the pension papers in advance and also consider whether there was any legal impediment in granting those benefits. However without examining the petitioner's case and without taking necessary steps to resolve the question as to the petitioner's age relaxation, requisite steps were sought to be taken after the petitioner's retirement. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions :

(3.) Shri A. M. Ghare, learned counsel for the 5 th respondent-employer at the outset objected to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.6316/2006 seeking similar reliefs. In that writ petition a prayer for grant of interest on delayed payment of pension had been made. Since only a direction was issued to decide the entitlement of the petitioner to receive pensionary benefits it was clear that the relief with regard to grant of interest was denied. It was therefore not now permissible to seek similar relief especially when no liberty was granted to make that prayer again. For said purpose the learned counsel referred to the order dated 23/06/2015 in Writ Petition No.7207/2014 (Vinayak s/o Domaji Khode and anr. vs. Wamanrao s/o Arjuni Kubde and ors.). Without prejudice to the aforesaid it was submitted that shortly prior to the petitioner's retirement the necessary proposal was sent by the Chief Officer on 06/07/2005 to the Competent Authority. The time taken to decide that proposal was by the Competent Authority for which the employer could not be penalised. He referred to various other communications on record and submitted that as the decision with regard to the petitioner's age relaxation was taken only on 14/07/2008 the employer could not be held responsible to make payment of any interest for that period. The pension case was immediately prepared on 08/09/2008 and therefore the prayer made in the writ petition was not liable to be granted. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Mohd. Akram Ansari vs. Chief Election Officer and ors. , 2008 2 SCC 95 in support of his contention and submitted that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.