ASHFAQ HUSAIN Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. The appellant had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.83 of 2005 for declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondents claiming that they had no authority in law to direct deduction of an amount of Rs.1,81,691/ out of the total amount Rs.2,14,088/, being payable to the appellant as his retirement gratuity, upon his retirement from his service as Section Officer with Zilla Parishad, Washim. He submitted that only ground on which said direction issued on behalf of the respondent No.1 could have been justified was when the said amount was considered as a Government due under the provisions of Rule 132 read with Rule 134 of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules"). Appellant submitted that there was no Government due found to be recoverable from him at the time of his retirement and, therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 lacked authority in law to direct payment of retirement gratuity by deducting an amount of Rs.1,81,691/, alleged to be the loan taken by the appellant from the Employees Cooperative Credit Society and not repaid by him.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who filed their common written statement while respondent No.3 did not file any written statement. These respondents submitted that the appellant had borrowed some amount as loan from the Employees Cooperative Credit Society and at that time he had executed a "Hamipatra" or an undertaking for repayment of loan on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned. These respondents further submitted that the respondent No.2 had given no objection to the Society in sanctioning of loan to the appellant and had also assured the Employees Cooperative Credit Society that the loan would be repaid. Therefore, when it was found by these respondents that the loan was not actually repaid and the appellant had even pressurized his subordinates, he being the Section Officer, not to remit loan installments to the Employees Cooperative Credit Society, the respondent No.1, as head of the Department, passed an order for deducting the said amount from the retirement gratuity payable to the appellant, for its being sent to the Society towards repayment of its loan.

(3.) The suit, upon consideration of the evidence on record, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim by his judgment and decree passed on 12th January, 2009. The first appeal that was preferred against the said judgment and decree by the present appellant, being Regular Civil Appeal No.23 of 2009, was also dismissed by the learned District Judge1, Washim by his judgment and order passed on 10th February, 2012. Not satisfied, the appellant is now before this Court by way of the present second appeal.