EURICO SANTANA DA SILVA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter dated 15th March 1995 was addressed by the Petitioner to the learned Chief Justice and was converted into a Suo Motu Writ Petition and assigned to this Court. The grievance made in the letter is with regard to delay in payment of the terminal dues of the Petitioner who retired on 10th May 1995, after 38 years of meritorious service rendered to the judiciary.

(2.) THE facts, shortly narrated, are : a) On 16th March 1995 the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court forwarded the pension papers of the Petitioner to the 2nd Respondent pointing out that the Petitioner would retire from service with effect from 10th May 1995 making a request that the pension case be decided at an early day. It was also specifically pointed out that the head quarters of the Petitioner were at Panaji, Goa Bench of this Court, and that further correspondence may be addressed to the Special Officer, High Court, Panaji Bench, Goa, under intimation to the prothonotary and Senior Master. THE letter was sent by hand delivery and received by the 2nd Respondent on the same day. b) On 30th June 1995, a letter was addressed by the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent to arrange for the payment from the Sub-treasury a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Prothonotary and Senior Master, Original side Bombay, towards the gratuity amount payable to the Petitioner. THE said letter also advised the Pay & Accounts Officer that the Petitioner had been authorised pension at the rate of Rs. 48,000/- per annum with effect from 10th May 1995 vide letter No. HCJ/7074595 00128. A copy of this letter was also simultaneously sent to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. c)On 18th September 1995, after waiting for more than three months, the Prothonotary and Senior Master addressed a letter to the Chief Controller of Accounts (Pension), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, stating that despite the Petitioner having retired on 10th May 1995 and the President of India having sanctioned a pension payment of Rs. 48,000/- per annum to the Petitioner and the Petitioner's expressed desire to draw monthly pension through State Bank of India, Margao, Goa, Account No.128026, the pension amount had not been received. THE Prothonotary and Senior Master requested that the monthly pension of the Petitioner be paid without further delay and immediate necessary action in the matter would be highly appreciated. d)A further reminder was issued to the Chief Controller of Accounts (Pension), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, on 19th March 1996 with a request that the payment of pension and the commuted amount be immediately credited to the account of the Petitioner in State Bank of India, Margao, Goa. e)As a result of this lengthy correspondence, the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the General Provident Fund in October 1995 and that too with interest only upto the end of August 1995 at the rate of 12%. the monthly pension of the Petitioner was deposited in his Bank account at Margao, Goa only from December 1995, but the commuted value of pension amount of Rs. 2,19,600/- was not credited to the account. f)THE Prothonotary & Senior master of this Court again took up the matter with the Accountant General, Maharashtra-I, by his letter dated 10th January 1996 and, finally, the Accountant General, Maharashtra-I, by his letter dated 22nd March 1996 conveyed that a sum of Rs. 1,15,160/- was payable towards gratuity and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards death-cum-retirement gratuity needed no adjustment. THE pension amount was indicated as authorised at Rs. 48,000/- per annum, as in the earlier letter. g)Pursuant to the receipt of the authorisation dated 22nd March 1996 from the Accountant General, Maharashtra-I, the Prothonotary and Senior master's office prepared a bill for disbursement of the amount of Rs. 1,15,160/- and lodged it with the Pay & Accounts Office on 29th March 1996 and by the end of March 1996, the Petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 5,658/- towards interest for delay in payment of the pension amount for the month of September 1995. However, despite the express request made for payment of the amount payable to the Petitioner's account in the State Bank of India, Margao, Goa, the Demand Draft was not may payable at Margao and the Petitioner had to bear a loss of about Rs. 6000/- towards the commission deducted by the Margao Branch for encashment of the Draft. h)A sum of Rs. 1,15,160/- was paid to the Petitioner on 9th April 1996 towards the outstanding balance due to the Petitioner towards death-cum-retirement gratuity. In this case also, the Draft, despite clear cut instructions, was made payable at Bombay instead of being payable at Margao, resulting in an additional deduction of about Rs. 1200/- towards commission charges by the Margao Branch of the State Bank of India, apart from delay in encashment of about a month. i)THE Petitioner had also applied for encashment of the cash equivalent of the unutilised leave for a period of eight months amounting to Rs. 1,11,360/- which was paid to the Petitioner by cheque dated 10th April 1996.

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit dated 14th June 1996 filed by the Pay & Accounts Officer also does not disclose undue delay in the payment of the sum of Rs. 1,15,160/- towards balance amount of gratuity.