(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 1999 Chandrakant s/o. Natwarlal Shaha, Age : 62 years, R/o. Balaji Wada, Nandurbar, District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Maharashtra Rajya Bazar Samiti Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Ad hoc Committee, Pune, through its Chief Executive Officer, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune - 411 037. 2. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nandurbar, District : Dhule. 3. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.N. Kakade, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate, holding for Mr. R.B. Raghuwanshi, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (2) Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the decision of the respondent no.1, dated 3-5-1997, granting pension to the petitioner with effect from 1st March 1997. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he was made to retire on 31st May 1993, but instead, the petitioner has been sanctioned pension from 1st March 1997. According to the petitioner, he has been deprived of the pension, for a period of 46 months i.e. from 1-6-1993 to 28-2-1997. 3. Mr. L.V. Sangit, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that while passing the order of not granting pension, for the said period of 46 months, no reasons have been mentioned and in the affidavit in reply, an afterthought story has been created by the respondent. According to him, the petitioner is not at falut and he is entitled to his substantive right i.e. (3) pension since 1-6-1993. 4. Mr. A.N. Kakade, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was acting Secretary and it was his duty to forward the monthly contribution to be made by the Market Committee towards the pension scheme in respect of each employee, before tenth day of every subsequent month. The petitioner committed defaults in the same. It is also his contention, that as the petitioner was acting Secretary, it was his duty to forward the pension papers six months prior to his date of retirement and he has forwarded the pension papers after lapse of two years, and the petitioner is only responsible for the same. 5. To receive pension is a substantive right of the petitioner. It is not the case, that the petitioner has played some fraud, so that a penalty should be imposed on the petitioner and even if a penal action is to be taken against the petitioner, then it should be preceded by a show cause notice or, at least, minimum principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In the present case, nothing of that sort has been observed. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has retired on 31st May 1993, the petitioner is entitled to the pension from 1st June 1993. (4) 7. The petitioner has claimed interest for the delayed payment of pension. However, it is observed, that the petitioner himself has not sent the pension papers for a period of two years and had kept quiet. In the light of that, we feel that the petitioner is not entitled for interest. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to pension from 1st June 1993. The respondents are directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner, for a period of 46 months i.e. from 1st June 1993 to 28th February 1997, within a period of six months from today. 9. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2670