SHANKAR KISANLAL KOSARKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mundra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Yengal, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and Mrs. Munshi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was appointed as Extension Officer [Class -ll] in the then Zilla Parishad, Bhandara, in the year 1963. The Petitioner served in the Department for thirty -six years and retired on 28th February, 1999, while he was on the post of Block Development Officer. It is submitted that the Respondent no. 4 granted No Objection Certificate [No Govt. Dues Certificate] on 28th May, 2000. However, the pension case of the Petitioner was not processed by Respondent No. 4 in spite of the fact that there was no enquiry of any kind, either conducted against the Petitioner during the course of his tenure, nor any action for any kind of misconduct, with or without enquiry, was taken against the Petitioner by the Department. It is contended that in such a situation, it was incumbent on the Respondent No.4 to grant all the pensionary benefits to which the Petitioner was entitled at the time of retirement.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has not obtained any loan in his personal capacity. Loan, if any, was obtained by the Panchayat Samiti Employees ' Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., and the Petitioner, at the relevant time, happened to be the Secretary of the Society. It is contended that there is no nexus, whatsoever, between the loan obtained by the Panchayat Samiti Employees ' Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., and the pensionary benefits to which the Petitioner is legally entitled. Similarly, the Chief Executive Officer has no power to withhold the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner and, therefore, question of consequently adjusting the amount of pensionary benefits payable to the Petitioner towards loan obtained by the Panchayat Samiti Employees ' Co -operative Housing Society Ltd., does not arise. It is contended that the Tribunal, without taking into consideration all these aspects, came to a wrong conclusion that the action of the Respondent No. 4 in withholding the pensionary benefits of the Petitioner and deducting the amount of recovery of Rs. 80,653.53 from the same towards loan obtained by the Society is sustainable in law. It is contended that the order of the Tribunal, in view of the above referred undisputed facts, is not sustainable in law.