M V BHAGWAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner herein is a former Assistant Estate Manager under the 2nd Respondent - Housing Area and Development Authority. The Respondent No.2 alleged certain acts of misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and, therefore, he was served with a charge-sheet and was initially suspended. Amongst others, one of the charges was to make allotment of a tenement to a ficticious person who was not eligible and not charging the correct amount for the excess area made available to him resulting into loss to the Housing Area and Development Authority. He was prosecuted as well. He was arrested on 1st April 1999 and was released on bail after quite some time. The prosecution under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of I.P.C. is still pending. The Petitioner was suspended on 24th June 1999, but later on reinstated on 30th May 2000 just one day prior to his retirement and was allowed to retire on 31st May 2000. He filed this writ petition on 26th August 2002 seeking the release of the contribution of MHADA towards provident fund, his gratuity, earned leave and other remaining amounts. However, after filing of this petition, so far as his retirement benefits are concerned, he has been paid the same from time to time though some of those payments were not paid immediately. This was partly because the departmental enquiry against him was pending.

(2.) The departmental enquiry against the Petitioner was concluded by giving a report on 30th August 2002 finding him guilty on some of the charges and an order came to be passed on 15th July 2004 forfeiting an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the contribution of employer towards the provident fund. This was under Regulation 32(c) of the MHADA Contributory Provident Fund Rules. The remaining part of provident fund was released. This order was passed on 15th July 2004. The only retirement benefit, which remained to be paid to him by that time, was gratuity which was Rs.2,65,780/-. It was paid to him on 29th July 2004. As of now, all amounts payable by way of retirement benefits except the forfeiture of Rs.10,000/- have been released to the Petitioner. Therefore, by the time the petition has reached final hearing, the only submission of the Petitioner is for the interest on account of delay in paying the gratuity amount. Mr.Vaidya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that whereas the Petitioner was allowed to retire on 31st May 2000, he has been paid this gratuity amount on 29th July 2004 and for this period of about four years, appropriate interest ought to be paid to him. Mr.Vaidya has relied upon section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which provides that in the event of delay in paying the amount of gratuity, the employer is liable to pay interest at such rate not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time. The rate fixed is not exceeding 10% and under section 7 sub-section (3), delay is to be calculated 30 days from the date on which the amount becomes payable.

(3.) Mr.Mattos, learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos.2 and 3, submitted that there is a sufficient explanation for the Respondents as to why the gratuity amount was not released immediately. He submitted that the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner was pending and until that was concluded, the officers thought it fit not to release the gratuity amount as well. He pointed out that whereas the final order is passed on 15th July 2004, within two weeks thereafter i.e. on 29th July 2004 the amount of gratuity has been paid. He therefore submits that no interest should be awarded on account of this delay.