(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5895 OF 2008 Shaikh Jahiroddin Shaikh Kadar, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Kiranipura, Taluka : Yawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Shinde, Advocate, instructed by Mr. M.K. Goyanka, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 (2) COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. Aggrieved by an order passed by the respondent, dated 25th March 2008, seeking to deduct amount of interest on the prematurely disbursed Provident Fund and Gratuity, this petition is filed. 2. The petitioner was employed as a Driver with the respondent in the year 1978. He was found unfit to work as a Driver by the Medical Board, on account of low vision, and hence was made to retire from service on that count, with effect from 8-1-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The petitioner succeeded before the Industrial Court. The said order of the Industrial Court was challenged by the respondent by filing a Writ Petition in this court. The Writ Petition came to be partly allowed and the amount of back wages came to be reduced from hundred percent to fifty percent. 3. As the respondent did not grant continuity of service, the petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 6197/2006. This court being of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be protected under the provisions of the Persons with (3) Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, allowed the petition. This court directed the respondent to consider petitioner's service as continuous one for the purpose of calculation of the amount of gratuity. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be reinstated and stood retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 31-12-2004. 4. The entire amount of retiral benefits has been released in favour of the petitioner, however, after deducting amount of interest accrued at the rate of 9.5 % per annum, on the payment released in favour of the petitioner when he was illegally made to retire in the year 1999. Obviously, the petitioner was made to retire prematurely, which was found to be illegal, and similarly the payment made by the respondent to the petitioner, towards Provident Fund and Gratuity, was also premature. Acting in tune with the orders passed by the court, the petitioner has been granted continuity of service and has been paid the amount due, however, after deducting the interest, as stated above. 5. We do not find any illegality in the action of the respondent, in deducting the amount of interest from the gratuity. (4) 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5895