GULABRAO NARAYANRAO CHANDURKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, allowed Transfer Application No. 2 of 1998 (Writ Petition No. 3024 of 1990) on 22.06.1999, directing the respondents to fix final pension of the petitioner and to pay gratuity on his retirement on the post of driver. The Tribunal has, however, rejected the claim for interest. For denying the relief of interest, the reason recorded is that the petitioner raised a dispute and his claim was denied by the respondents from time to time and therefore, he was not entitled to interest.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as driver in the services of the State Government with effect from 15.06.1959. He suffered major accident on 31.03.1982 and consequently being unable to perform the said job of driver, he was given posting as Messenger on 17.11.198 The petitioner worked on the said post till he retired on 30.06.1987. Though his pay on the post of driver was protected, he was denied the fixation of pension and payment of gratuity on the post of driver. The petitioner was paid provisional pension. Therefore, he approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench.

(3.) The decision given by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 22.06.1999 has not been challenged by the respondents. We do not find any reason for not fixing the pension and payment of gratuity payable to the petitioner on the post of Driver. We also do not find any reason to pay the provisional pension instead of finalizing it. The order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has attained the finality. The petitioner could not have been blamed for denial of interest either on the final payment of gratuity or payment of pension as per the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench.