1 WP No.3526/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.3526 Of 2007 Vasant s/o Sakharam Patil. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. D.S. Bagul, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 5th JANUARY 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner seeks interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. The petitioner retired as Village Development Officer. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount of Rs.9,465/- is required to be directed to be paid as 12% interest on delayed payment of 2 WP No.3526/2007 the retiral benefits. According to the counsel, the petitioner handed over charge in time and submitted his papers but the retiral benefits were not paid in time. 3) Respondent No.3 filed affidavit in reply. In para 16 of the reply the deponent contends:- "16. I say and submit that, even for getting the retirement benefits, the petitioner was not deliberately submitted the necessary forms, therefore, the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Dhule vide its notice dated 18/05/2001 directed the petitioner to submit necessary pensionary forms along with family photos. The record further shows that, immediately on the next date i.e. 19/05/2000, the petitioner has submitted necessary application forms for getting pensionary benefits. The record of this deponent clearly shows that, it is the petitioner who was at fault and for the reasons best known to him, he has not handed over the charge of various Grampanchayat as well as not submitted the application form for getting pensionary benefits in time, therefore, the allegations made in the petition are contrary to the records. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine." 4) The learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that, the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy under the provisions of Section 267 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act. 5) We have considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, perused the relevant communications and the affidavit-in-reply filed. 3 WP No.3526/2007 6) The petitioner admittedly retired on 30th November 1999. He was paid his retiral benefits in the the year 2001. Respondent No.3 states that, the petitioner had submitted requisite forms on 19th May 2001. For non compliance of necessary requirements in time on the part of the petitioner, the payment of retiral benefits could not be disbursed to the petitioner. 7) Considering the explanation given and the correspondence made, we do not find that directions are required to be given to the respondents to pay interest as prayed by the petitioner. In the facts of the case we are not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl