Review ApplicationsMr v. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:23549-DB 10456.24ca etc(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10456 OF 2024 IN/WITH RAST/26538/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONTHROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHERVERSUSTANAJI GANGARAM KANOTE AND OTHERSWITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 223 OF 2024 IN WP/9110/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED AND ANOTHERVERSUSNANDKUMAR PRABHAKARRAO KULKARNI AND OTHERS WITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 219 OF 2024 IN WP/9264/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED AND ANOTHERVERSUSVILAS MADHAVRAO MATPALLEVAR AND OTHERSWITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 220 OF 2024 IN WP/8924/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED AND ANOTHERVERSUSJAMILODDIN KHALILODDIN AND ANOTHER WITH
Legal Reasoning
10456.24ca etc(2) REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 221 OF 2024 IN WP/9237/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED AND ANOTHERVERSUSDAYANAND LOKAJI JONDHALE AND OTHERSWITHREVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 222 OF 2024 IN WP/9198/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED AND ANOTHERVERSUSDATTARAM JAKOJIRAO PATIL AND OTHERSWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10477 OF 2024 IN/WITH RAST/26668/2024NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONNANDED THROUGH ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER ANDANRSVERSUSNITIN SHRINIVAS TORNEKAR AND OTHERS ….Mr R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Applicants in respective Applications/Review ApplicationsMr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for Respondents/State in respective Application/Review ApplicationMr A. B. Shinde, Mr S. B. Patil, Mr G. R. Syed and Ms Priyanka Shinde, Advocates for Respondents/Petitioners in Writ PetitionsAND905 WRIT PETITION NO. 9811 OF 2024KISHAN DATTARAM PANCHAL AND OTHERS 10456.24ca etc(3) VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS...WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9831 OF 2024MOHAMMED JAFAR HUSSAIN MOHAMMED KHAJA HUSSAINAND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY ANDANOTHER WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9836 OF 2024MOHAMMAD IQBAL MOHAMMAD ISMAIL AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY ANDANOTHER WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9744 OF 2024SHAIKH ISMAIL SHAIKH HUSSAINVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9911 OF 2024RAJKUMAR MANAKCHAND ACHLEEYA AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9904 OF 2024 10456.24ca etc(4) SURESH PIRAJI PASHAMWAD AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9897 OF 2024TAMANA JASPAL SINGH SARDAR SINGH AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9934 OF 2024BHAGATSINGH BHUJANGSINGH GADIWALE AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9799 OF 2024MANNU FULCHAND PARDESHI AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9874 OF 2024SUDAS MUNJAJI THORAT AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITSSECRETARY AND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9873 OF 2024VILAS PUNDLIKRAO BHOSIKAR AND OTHERS 10456.24ca etc(5) VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10266 OF 2024SARDAR MAHENDRASINGH NANU SINGH AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9915 OF 2024RATNAKAR DEVIDASRAO JOSHI AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10384 OF 2024DASTGIR MANSURKHAN PATHAN AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY ANDOTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10273 OF 2024SHAIKH RAIS PASHA HAMIDODDINVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10343 OF 2024MADHUKAR TUKARAM PANDIT AND OTHERSVERSUS 10456.24ca etc(6) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10500 OF 2024MD. JEELANI KHAN MD. KHALLIKHAN AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 10538 OF 2024GURDEEPSINGH JAIMALSINGH SAHU AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARYAND OTHERS ….Mr A. B. Shinde, Mr G. R. Syed, Mr D. K. Thote, Ms Priyanka Shinde, Mrs Vidya Kothule, Ms Risha S. Navatake, Mr R. B. Hake, Advocates for Petitioners in respective Writ PetitionsMr S. K. Tambe, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No.1/StateMr R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Respondent /Zilla Parishad, Nanded CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGEAND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 26th September, 2024PER COURT:1.Civil Application No.10456/2024, in ReviewApplication (St.) No.26538/2024 and Civil ApplicationNo.10477/2024, in Review Application (St.) No.26668/2024, 10456.24ca etc(7) seeking condonation of delay, are allowed by consent of theparties. Delay is condoned. The Review Applications standregistered.2.All these Review Applications have been preferred bythe Nanded-Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded,seeking review of the orders of this Court passed in the respectiveWrit Petitions, details of which are as under :-Sr. No.Writ Petition Nos.Date of the Order1.Writ Petition No.6770/202420/08/20242.Writ Petition No.5408/202424/04/20243.Writ Petition No.8924/202427/08/20244.Writ Petition No.9110/202427/08/20245.Writ Petition No.9198/202427/08/20246.Writ Petition No.9237/202427/08/20247.Writ Petition No.9264/202427/08/20243.In all the above orders of this Court, which are almostidentical, this Court has made similar observations. For the sakeof reference, we advert to our first order, dated 20/08/2024,delivered in Writ Petition No.6770/2023 (Tanaji GangaramKanote and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), whichreads as under :- 10456.24ca etc(8) “1.The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses B andC as under:-“B)Kindly Issue writ of Mandamus or any other Writ,order or direction in like nature thereby direct therespondent no.2 and 3 to revise the pay scale ofpetitioners as per the 7th pay commission and giveconsequential benefits with interest applicable as perthe law and for that purpose issue necessary order.C)The respondent no.3 may kindly be directed to givethe benefits of 7th pay commission to the petitionersfrom 1st January 2016 as per the GovernmentResolution dated 02.08.2019 and revise pensionarybenefits to the petitioners and for that purpose issuenecessary order.”2.Shri Ingole, the learned Advocate for the MunicipalCorporation, has vehemently opposed this petition and praysthat this petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.3.Shri Ingole further vehemently submits that thefinancial condition of the Municipal Corporation is weak andthere are no funds. The Municipal Corporation will have togenerate it’s own funds. So also, interest component may not begranted. He submits that the Government Resolution dated02.08.2019, is to be considered in such matters.4.In the light of his strenuous submissions, we drewhis attention to the recent order dated 24.07.2024, passed bythis Bench involving the same Municipal Corporation, in WritPetition No.5408/2024 (Nitin Shriniwas Tornekar and othersvs. The State of Maharashtra and others). We also drew hisattention to the affidavit in reply filed by Janardhan GulabraoPakwane, Chief Account Officer of the Municipal Corporationin the matter of Nitin Tornekar (supra). 10456.24ca etc(9) 5.The Municipal Corporation had stated inparagraph 9 of the affidavit in reply, in bold letters, filed in thecase of Nitin Tornekar (supra), as under:-“The payment of arrears requires a policy decision formaking the number of installments considering the financialposition. The deponent respectfully submits that, after taking astrategic decision regarding the payment of the differenceamount of the 7th Pay Commission to the working / retiredofficers / employees of NWCMC. The difference amount of the7th pay commission will be released.”6.The learned Advocate for the Petitioners countersthe above reproduced portion by stating that Shri JanardhanPakwane is a Chief Account Officer and he has received hisarrears of 7th Pay Commission in one single installment. Sincehe was the Chief Account Officer, he ensured that he got hisarrears in lump sum. As against this, he now states inparagraph No.9 that a strategic decision will be taken to paythe difference of amount to the employees.7.The learned Advocate for the Corporation submitsthat it may not be true that Mr.Janardhan Gulabrao Pakwanereceived the arrears in lump sum. He further assures that thearrears are legally payable to the Petitioners and they would bepaid as early as possible.8.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partlyallowed with the following directions :-[a] The first equated installment inclusive of 6%interest p.a., shall be paid on or before 15.09.2024 to thesePetitioners.[b] The second equated installment shall be paid on orbefore 15.10.2024 and the last equated installment would bepayable on or before 15.11.2024. 10456.24ca etc(10) [c] We make it clear that even if one of these directionsare not complied with, we would hold the Commissioner ofMunicipal Corporation and Shri Janardhan Gulabrao Pakwane,responsible.”4.With reference to Paragraph 7 of the abovereproduced order, the learned Advocate for the Corporation hasconveyed to us on instructions that, Mr Janardhan GulabraoPakwane, Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Nanded-WaghalaCity Municipal Corporation, Nanded, has received the arrears ofthe 7th Pay Commission recommendations difference in wages,from his earlier Employer and not from the Corporation, keepingin view that, he is presently on deputation with the Corporation.The learned Advocates for the Petitioners submit that, since MrPakwane has already received his difference salary from hisearlier Employer, he has stated in the affidavit-in-reply in the saidproceeding, that “a strategic decision will have to be taken” topay the legal dues of the employees. This is borne out from theaffidavit set out in Writ Petition No.5408/2024 (Nitin ShrinivasTornekar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others), portionreproduced above. 10456.24ca etc(11) 5.The learned Advocate for the Corporation submitsthat, he is aware of the law laid down in Lily Thomas and othersVs. Union of India and others, (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases224; S. Madhusudan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy andothers, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1034and Pancham Lal Pandey Vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra andothers, 2023 SCC Online SC 143 : AIR 2023 SC 948. Keepingthis settled position of law in focus, he submits that theCorporation had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court forchallenging the orders of this Court, review of which, is nowsought in these Review Petitions. The Special Leave PetitionNos.21419 to 21425/2024, have been withdrawn by theCorporation, with the prayer to approach the High Court, forfiling Review Petitions. The Special Leave Petitions weredismissed as withdrawn with liberty. It is in these circumstances,that these Review Petitions have been filed. 6.The submissions of the learned Advocate for theCorporation, in support of these Review Petitions, are as under :- 10456.24ca etc(12) (a)The Finance Department has issued a Notificationdated 30/01/2019, by which, an amendment is introduced tothe Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2019(for short ‘the Rules 2019’).(b)In Clause 14 of the said Notification, it is provided asunder :-“14. Mode of payment of arrears of pay. (1) Thearrears of pay entitled to Government servant onaccount of revision of pay under these Rules, for theperiod from the 1 day of January 2016 to the 31 dayof December 2018 (both inclusive) shall be credited tothe General Provident Fund (GPF) or ApplicablePension Scheme, as the case may be, in five equalinstallments over the next five years from financialyear 2019- 2020; subject to the following conditions,-(a) withdrawal of amount of arrears paid inGeneral Provident Fund (GPF) in installmentsshall not be permitted for the period of twoyears from the date of its deposit;(b) if a Government servant ceases to be inGovernment service due to retirement, or anyother reason after crediting one or moreinstallments in his account, remaininginstallments shall be paid to the Governmentservant in cash, on specified date for depositinginstallment. 10456.24ca etc(13) (2) In case of Government servant to whom the"Applicable Pension Scheme" is applicable, theGovernment may issue separate orders in respectarrears to be credited in their Applicable PensionScheme.Explanation. For the purposes of this section, theexpression "Applicable Pension Scheme" means thePension Scheme or Schemes applicable to theGovernment servants to whom the 'General ProvidentFund Scheme' is not applicable.”(c)Under Rule 14 of the 2019 Rules, the difference of thesalary as per the 7th Pay Commission recommendations arenot to be paid directly to the employees. They would bedeposited in their General Provident Fund in five yearlyinstallments and each of the installments would not betouched for a period of two years from the date of deposit.(d)Regular payment of salaries as per the 7th PayCommission recommendations have been paid to theemployees from 2021.(e)Some of the employees have superannuated and theirdues will be directly deposited in their accounts. 10456.24ca etc(14) (f)The Finance Department of the State of Maharashtraissued yet another Government Circular, titled as“Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2019”, bywhich, the 7th Pay Commission recommendations have beenaccepted.(g)The Corporation passed a Resolution on 11/09/2019,bearing Resolution No.33, vide which, therecommendations of the 7th Pay Commission have beenaccepted and made applicable from 01/01/2016. Vide thesaid Resolution, the Corporation resolved that, thedifference in the payments, meaning the difference in therates payable under the 6th Pay Commissionrecommendations and the 7th Pay Commissionrecommendations, shall be paid to the employees in equatedinstallments, along with their monthly salaries. ThisResolution is undisturbed and has neither been suspendedby the Commissioner, nor has it suffered any order, bywhich, it can be said to be kept in abeyance. 10456.24ca etc(15) (h)The Corporation forwarded the Resolution on15/11/2019 and after queries from the State Government,the revised proposal was forwarded, on 27/08/2020.(i)The Government granted it’s approval on 23/12/2020.(j)The expenditure of the Corporation on the salaries ofit’s employees has crossed 35%, and it is a mandate of theState Government that, such expenditure should be keptbelow 35%. By absorbing the payment of difference of the7th Pay Commission recommendations, the same should notincrease beyond 35%.(k)After this Court passed it’s order on 24/07/2024, inWrit Petition No.5408/2024, the Corporation constituted aCommittee on 03/09/2024 and the Committee is now goingto work for three months to take a decision, as to how thegrievance of the employees, who are legally entitled to thepayment of difference of pay-scale, should be dealt with.(l)At page 192 of the Review Application (St.)No.26538/2024, the Corporation has placed before us the 10456.24ca etc(16) grants received under the 14th Finance Commission and the15th Finance Commission, with the note that, these grantsare used for solid waste management, repayment of loan,payment of electricity charges, operation and maintenanceof water treatment plant and sewerage treatment plant.There is no mention of granting amounts to the employees.(m)The Corporation has issued an order dated20/12/2014, with regard to the 6th Pay Commissionrecommendations, wherein the Corporation has resolved asunder :-“ नांदेडवाघाळाशहरमहानगरपालि(cid:17)कासव(cid:20)साधारणसभेनेदिदनांक18.08.2009 रोजीसंमतके(cid:17)े(cid:17)ाठरावक्र. 54 अन्वयेराज्य शासकीयकम(cid:20)चा- यांप्रमाणेचनांदेडवाघाळाशहर महानगरपालि(cid:17)केती(cid:17)सेवादिनवृत्त/ काय(cid:20)रतअधिधकारी/कम(cid:20)चारी/ कामगार यांनादिदनांक01.01.2016 पासूनसहावावेतनआयोग(cid:17)ागू करण्यासमान्यतादिदल्याप्रमाणेकाया(cid:20)(cid:17)यीनआदेशक्र. मनपासाप्रदिव/5/2010 दिदनांक02.04.2010 नुसारसुधारीतवेतनश्रेणीमध्ये दिदनांक01 जानेवारी2006 पासूनवेतनदिनधि0तीकरुनसुधारीत वेतनश्रेणीप्रत्यक्ष01 मे2010 पासुनवेतनातसमादिवष्ठकरुन देण्यातआ(cid:17)ाआहे. 10456.24ca etc(17) सहावावेतनआयोगाती(cid:17)सुधारीतवेतनश्रेणीमुळेदिदनांक01 जानेवारी2006 पासूनअनुज्ञेयहोणारीफरकाचीरक्कम01 एदिप्र(cid:17)2012 नंतरमहापालि(cid:17)केच्याआर्थि;कपरिरस्थि>;तीनुसारफरकाचीरक्कम अदाकरण्यातबाबतकाय(cid:20)वाहीकरण्यातयेई(cid:17)असेसंदभAयक्र. 5 अन्वयेआदेशातनमुदकेल्यानुसारसहाव्यावेतनआयोगाची फरकाचीअंदाजीतदेयअस(cid:17)े(cid:17)ीरक्कमरुपये29,11,50,066/- महापालि(cid:17)केसएकरक्कमीअदाकरणेशक्यनसल्यामुळे5 व्या आयोगाचीफरकाचीरक्कमअदाकरण्यातआ(cid:17)ीहोतीत्याच धतAवरसहाव्यावेतनधारककुंटूकदिनवृत्तवेतनधारककम(cid:20)चा- यांनावअधिधका- यानासमादिवष्ठकरून52 मदिहन्यातसदरी(cid:17)रक्कम अदाकरणेबाबतमान्यताप्रदानकरण्यातयेते. यावर(cid:17)ागणारा खच(cid:20)अंदाजपत्रकाती(cid:17)संबधिधतशिशर्ष(cid:20)कातूनकरण्यातयावा.(मा. आयुक्तयांचेमान्यतेने)”(n)With regard to the 6th Pay Commissionrecommendations, all arrears have been paid to the employees inequated 52 installments along with their monthly salaries.7.We have considered the strenuous submissions of thelearned Advocates for the Petitioners in the respective ReviewApplications.8.It is an admitted position that the 7th Pay Commissionwas made applicable on 01/01/2016. As on date, the saidrecommendations are applicable for another 15 months, out of the 10456.24ca etc(18) 120 months coverage. As yet, not a penny has been paid by theCorporation to any of the Original Petitioners, until this Courtpassed the above orders, and only in the cases wherein theHon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions,that, one installment has been paid by the Corporation to only 7workers, who were in the first Petition [Writ PetitionNo.5408/2024 (Nitin Shrinivas Tornekar and others Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others)].9.In catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Courthas concluded that the employees, who are legally entitled to thepayments of the Pay Commission recommendations, cannot bedeprived of such payments. So also, the Corporation itself passedthe Resolution No.33, dated 11/09/2019, by which, it is agreed topay the difference of the salary in equated monthly installments tothe employees along with their monthly salaries. Though thisResolution was accepted on 11/09/2019, not a single penny waspaid to the Original Petitioners, as well as the Petitioners in theWrit Petitions, which are being heard by the consent of the partiesalong with these Review Applications. At the cost of repetition, 10456.24ca etc(19) the Corporation has deposited one installment in the SalaryAccounts of the 7 workers after this Court passed it’s order, dated24/07/2024, in Writ Petition No.5408/202410.Though Rule 14 of the Rules 2019, indicates that theinstallment should be deposited in the General Provident Fund ofthe employees in 5 years and the employees would not bepermitted to withdraw the said amounts for two years, we are ofthe view that Rule 14 (1)(a) does not stand the test of reason andlogic and clearly appears to be arbitrary. When the difference inthe pay-scale is a property of the employees, and when they havean executable right, not only to receive the said money, but evento utilize it, clause (a) under Rule 14(1), prohibiting the use ofsaid amount for the two years, after it is deposited in the GeneralProvident Fund, when the employee has a right to withdraw theportion of the General Provident Fund, is arbitrary andunsustainable. 11.The learned Advocate for the Corporation clarifiesthat, such embargo is not imposed on those employees, who have 10456.24ca etc(20) retired from service. This is clarified in the further circular dated20/02/2019. Be that as it may, if an employee can withdraw aportion of the General Provident Fund, there is no wisdom inintroducing a clause that, after the installment is deposited in theGeneral Provident Fund, the in-service candidates would nottouch the amount for two years. Moreover, the Corporation itselfresolved to deposit the amounts in the Accounts of the employeesin equated monthly installments along with their monthly salaries.However, in how many monthly installments would the saidamount be paid, is a matter of circumspection, surmises andconjectures. The learned Advocate for the Corporation is quick inpointing out that, insofar as the 6th Pay Commissionrecommendations were concerned, the difference amounts werepaid in 52 equated monthly installments. Why the same principleis not made applicable for payment of 7th pay Commission arrears,is anybody’s guess.12.In the State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs.Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, [2021 AIR SC 2669], theHon’ble Supreme Court concluded that, when the Government 10456.24ca etc(21) delays the payment of salaries and pension, the interest for thedelayed period is logical. The High Court of Andhra Pradeshgranted 12% interest as against the 6% granted by theGovernment of Andhra Pradesh. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtreduced the rate of interest to 6% p.a.13.The Corporation has boldly taken a stand before usthat, they were to deposit five equated yearly installments of thearrears from 2020 on-wards, after the State Government approvedsuch payment. Pitted against the Resolution No.33 of theCorporation, dated 11/09/2019, the Petitioners submit that, theywould have appreciated if the Corporation had deposited the saidinstallments in their General Provident Fund, with the leave towithdraw the amounts, as and when required, if not paid throughtheir salary Accounts, in 52 equated monthly installments, as likethe formula applied while paying the arrears of 6th PayCommission recommendations. It is an admitted position that theCorporation did not deposit a single installment in the GeneralProvident Fund of the employees from December 2020. Had thatbeen done, four installments would have deposited by now, and 10456.24ca etc(22) only one installment would have remained. By not depositing asingle installment, four installments have accumulated on the headof the Corporation and the 5th installment would be due inDecember 2025. 14.It is also an admitted position that, Class-I Officers ondeputation with the Corporation have already received theirarrears, since the Government cleared them and the Corporationdisbursed the amounts to them. This creates a dichotomy, bywhich, the Officers from the Class-I category, whose salary scalesare more than four times of the Class-IV employees, havereceived all their arrears and the Class-IV employees, who arehand to mouth, have not received a single installment.15.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of theOriginal Petitioner, as well as on behalf of the Petitioners in thePetitions, which are on board, submit that, they are moreinterested in receiving their original dues, and not in exertingpressure on the Corporation. If the Corporation is not able tocomply with the directions of this Court, it ends up in facingcontempt proceedings. They jointly suggest that, four yearly 10456.24ca etc(23) installments, which were to be paid to the Petitioners between2020 to 2024, keeping in view Rule 14 of the 2019 Rules, bedeposited in their General Provident Fund. To the extent of theretired employees, they be paid in their Accounts in five equatedmonthly installments along with 6% interest, as granted by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh andAnr. (supra). 16.The learned Advocates suggest as under :(a)The first installment along with interest, be paidbefore Diwali 2024, on or before 21/10/2024.(b)The second, third and the fourth equated installments,along with interest, be paid with 90 days intervals,following the first installment.(c)The last (fifth) installment be paid without interest,since it would be payable only in December 2025, on orbefore 01/12/2025.
Decision
10456.24ca etc(24) 17.We find that the learned Advocates for the Petitionershave put forth a fair proposal. The orders under review, standmodified accordingly and all these Review Petitions standdisposed off, in terms of the above time schedule. 18.Consequentially, all the Writ Petitions on the causelist today, concerning the Petitioners, who are identically placed,stand disposed off, with the same directions. 19.Insofar as the in-service employees are concerned, theinstallments would be paid as per the time schedule set out aboveand such amounts, with interest, would be deposited in theGeneral Provident Fund of the Petitioners/in-service employees.20.Insofar as Gratuity component is concerned, which iscalculated on the basis of the 7th Pay Commissionrecommendations, the said belated payment will carry 12%interest, in the light of the Notification dated 05/10/1999, issuedby the Government of India, applicable under the payment ofGratuity. 10456.24ca etc(25) 21.This would also apply to the difference in thecommutation amount, as per the statutorily payable interest andalso to the leave encashment. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)sjk