AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3143 OF 2009 Shri Ramling Vinayak Nalawade ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. Amit Borkar for respondents 4 and 5. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner was working as an assistant teacher in respondent 4 school, which is an aided school. On 30/1/2008, the petitioner retired on attaining superannuation as a Head Master. According to the petitioner, before he retired, respondent 4 should have AJN 2 submitted his service book and other necessary documents for computation of the retirement benefit, pension, etc. to the State Government. As the petitioner’s pension was not paid, the petitioner approached this court, inter alia, for the following relief. “(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ / direction / order in the nature of writ of mandamus or certiorari under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. (i) Be pleased to direct the Respondents to fix the pension and to pay monthly pension and other benefits such as commutation of pension, gratuity fund and earned leave etc. forthwith to the Petitioner and pay regular monthly pension as per law; (ii) Be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the arrears of pension from the date of retirement i.e. 1/2/2008 till 31/3/2009 or till its realization with the 18% interest on the said arrears of pensionary amount.” AJN 3 2. The petition was filed on 5/3/2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs us that on 21/8/2009, the petitioner has received a letter from the Government informing him that his application for pension is cleared. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents must pay interest on the said amount. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Khushalchan Chudamal Nehate v. Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha & Ors. in Writ Petition No.1087 of 2004. We have been shown yet another judgment of this court in Gangadhar Basanna Kothane v. Shri Siddheshwar Devasthan Panch Committee, in Writ Petition No.2218 of 2004 where the Division Bench of this court had granted 8% interest on the arrears of pension amount. We are informed that the petitioner in that case carried the matter to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its order dated 25/4/2005 enhanced the interest rate by 4%. Thus, the interest was directed to be paid at 12% per annum. The said order of the Supreme Court is also shown to us. In our opinion, this AJN 4 is a fit case where the respondents should be directed to pay interest to the petitioner on the arrears of pension amount at 12% per annum. Order accordingly. 3. From the affidavit of Ms. Asavari Prasad Jogalekar, Superintendent, Pay and Provident Fund Unit, Office of Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, District Satara, it appears that though the petitioner retired on 30/1/2008, respondent 4 did not submit the petitioner’s pension proposal in time. Ms. Joglekar has stated that despite reminders dated 6/3/2009 and 15/4/2009, respondent 4 did not submit the pension proposal of the petitioner till 29/5/2009. It is further stated that the pension papers of the petitioner were immediately processed thereafter and they were found to be lacking in four material particulars i.e. (1) the proposal was not accompanied by the photographs of the petitioner, (2) the orders regarding condition of break were not attached, (3) remarks by the Reviewing Authority were not forwarded and (4) pension papers were not sent in appropriate format AJN 5 i.e. Annexure II. 4. On 11/6/2009, respondent 4 was called upon to complete the proposal and answer the queries which were raised. It appears that thereafter, the proposal came to be forwarded by respondent 4 and the State seems to have cleared it. In our prima facie opinion, therefore, respondent 4 is responsible for the delay. In our prima facie opinion, the State Government is entitled to recover the interest amount to be paid to the petitioner from respondent 4. We must note that though the petitioner had filed this petition way back in March, 2009, till date affidavit in reply is not filed by respondent 4. If respondent 4 had any explanation, it should have offered it on affidavit. While recovering the amount from respondent 4, explanation if any, forwarded by respondent 4 may be considered by the State. We find that the petitioner is a handicapped person. He has lost one leg. In such circumstances, in our opinion, he should get the amount at the earliest. We expect the State Government to complete all formalities and ensure that the payment AJN 6 reaches the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by it. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [A.A. SAYED, J.]