Bombay High Court
SHUBHANGI BHALCHANDRA GADGILversusCENTRAL HINDU MILITARY EDUCATION SOCIETY THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is partly allowed: interest at 10% is awarded on the gratuity amount, while the claim for interest on pension is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired lecturer, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and the college to release her retirement dues, including gratuity, pension and interest at 18% from July 2013. The college had already paid arrears of the 6th Pay Commission and a small interest amount, but the State withheld gratuity and pension until April 2016, citing objections that were later ignored. The petitioner waived any claim for interest on the pension, opting to pursue it against the management, while insisting on interest for the delayed gratuity. The Court examined the objections raised by the Deputy Director and found no substantive basis for the delay, attributing it to the State’s own withholding. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the petition, granting statutory interest of 10% on the gratuity amount from August 2013 to March 2016, and dismissed the claim for interest on pension, leaving the petitioner free to pursue that claim separately.
Issues considered
- Whether the State is liable to pay interest on delayed gratuity payments to the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed pension payments from the State.
- Whether the management can be held responsible for the delay in payment of retirement benefits.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the release of retirement dues.
Subjects
- retirement dues
- gratuity
- pension
- interest
- writ of mandamus
- higher education
- delay in payment
- 6th Pay Commission
- statutory interest
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
TRUPTI
TRUPTI SADANAND
SADANAND BAMNE
BAMNE Date:
2026.01.28
11:07:01
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10054 OF 2014
1. Shubhangi Bhalchandra Gadgil
aged 60 years, R/o. Banglow No.2,
Patil Nest, Anandvalli Shivar,
Near Navshya Ganpati Temple,
Gangapur Road, Nashik,
Dist – Nashik – 422 005 ….Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Hindu Military Education Society
Through its General Secretary,
Having its office at : Rambhoomi,
Bhonsala Bhavan, Dr. Moonje Marg,
Nashik – 422 005
2. Bhonsala Military College
Through the Principal, Rambhoomi,
Bhonsala Bhavan, Dr. Moonje Marg,
Nashik – 422 005
3. Joint Director of Higher Education,
(Pune Region), Having his office at
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road,
Near Sant Mathew Marathi Church,
Opp. Red Temple, Pune – 411 001
4. University of Pune
Through its Registrar, Having Office
at Pune University Campus,
Ganeshkhind, Pune – 411 007
5. State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary, Department
of Higher Education, Mantralaya,
Annexe, Mumbai - 32 ….Respondents
Trupti 1 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
----
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Sarnath S. Pramod
for the Petitioner.
Mrs. P.N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 5- State.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. This Petition was admitted on 10.10.2017.
2. Considering the pleadings and prayers, Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, appear to be formal parties.
3. The Petitioner has put forth prayer clauses (a) and
(b), as under :
“a) For a Writ of Mandamus or writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus or for any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the Respondents No.3 and 5 to
release the retirement dues of the Petitioner
including pension and gratuity on the basis of
her last drawn salary and without insistence of
any amount towards recovery and with
interest @18% p.a. from 01/07/2013 and with
a further direction to Respondents No.1 and 2
to follow up with the Office of the Joint
Director to ensure release of these dues at the
earliest;
Trupti 2 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
b) For a Writ of Mandamus or writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus or for any
other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing Respondents No.1 and 2 to pay to the
Petitioner the arrears of sixth pay commission
deposited with them;”
4. The learned Senior Advocate representing the
Petitioner who is present in the Court Hall, submits on
instructions, that the college issued a communication dated
22.04.2016 and released the difference of salary considering
the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission for an
amount of Rs. 3,72,801/- by two cheques, both dated
29.03.2016, drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, College Campus
Branch. The details of such payment are at page No. 105. The
learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner further submits that
the Petitioner has no grievance against the college and
institution, more so for the reason that the interest amount on
arrears of Rs.10,583/-, was paid by the college vide
communication dated 20.10.2014.
5. In view of the above, prayer clause (b) is worked
out.
Trupti 3 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
6. Insofar as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the
Petitioner had sought release of retirement dues, which
included gratuity, pension, and interest at the rate of 18%
from 01.07.2013 till the amounts were actually paid, when
this Petition was filed.
7. The learned Senior Advocate further submits that
the Petitioner was called upon to tender an undertaking dated
16.03.2016 to the Deputy Director of Higher and Technical
Education stating that she would not claim interest on her
retirement dues. The same is at page No. 95. This is denied by
the State on the ground that the Petitioner herself came
forward and voluntarily decided to acquiesce her claim for
interest and, therefore, interest was not paid.
8. We find that the Deputy Director of Higher and
Technical Education had raised an objection to the payment of
retirement dues of the Petitioner vide order dated 14.08.2014,
at page No. 67, stating that there were certain discrepancies
with regard to the advertisement issued by the management
while recruiting the Petitioner.
Trupti 4 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
9. On facts, we find that the Petitioner joined as a
Part-Time Lecturer in Marathi on 09.07.1991. The University
granted approval vide order dated 16.12.1991 for a period of
six months. A further extension of approval for six months was
granted on 22.04.1992. After an advertisement was published
on 17.06.1992 for filling up the post of Lecturer in Marathi
(Full-Time), the Petitioner appeared for the interview on
02.08.1992 and was appointed as a Full-Time Lecturer on
11.08.1992. The University approved her appointment vide
order dated 17.03.1993 with effect from 11.08.1992.
10. The Petitioner started receiving the Full-Time
salary scale from 11.08.1994, by order of the management
dated 07.09.1996. She was placed in the Senior Scale after
completing seven years of service, with effect from
27.07.1998. The management forwarded the proposal for pay
fixation on 28.02.2000, and the Joint Director granted the pay
scale in the pay band of Rs. 8,000-225-13,500 with effect from
01.10.1996. The Petitioner became an Assistant Professor
through the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and was
placed in the relevant pay scale on 27.07.2006. The Petitioner
Trupti 5 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
tendered an option form in accordance with the Government
Resolution of the Higher and Technical Education Department
dated 12.08.2009, thereby electing for the revised pay scale of
the post of Associate Professor with effect from 01.01.2006.
11. Vide letter dated 25.09.2012, the management of
the Petitioner sought to recover an amount of Rs. 7,50,439/-.
The learned Senior Advocate submits that the said issue has
now been closed by the management. He further submits that
the Petitioner started receiving pension from April 2016 and
that all arrears from 01.07.2013 to March 2016, were paid in
April 2016 without interest.
12. The learned AGP has strenuously canvassed that
there is no prayer for interest against the State. The additional
affidavit tendered by the Petitioner dated 10.10.2017, more
particularly paragraph 10 thereof, indicates that the Petitioner
has blamed the management for deliberately causing hurdles
in the payment of salary as well as retirement benefits. It is
submitted that the delay caused grave consequences in her life
and that she suffered tremendous mental pressure and torture.
Therefore, no interest is leviable upon the State. She further
Trupti 6 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
refers to paragraph 11 of the Petitioner’s additional affidavit
and submits that the letter written by the Petitioner to the
Respondent-State indicates that there is no claim against the
Office of the Joint Director. However, she does not waive her
claim of interest against the Respondent-Management. She,
therefore, prays that the Petition be dismissed.
13. We find that it was the Joint Director of Higher
and Technical Education who listed out objections as grounds
for non-payment of gratuity and retirement benefits, after the
retirement of the Petitioner and after she had put in more than
20 years of service. It is the same office which, three years
down the line, cleared the entire retirement benefits of the
Petitioner along with gratuity, without dealing with the said
objections. Therefore, the question would be as to why did the
said authority block the payment, if those objections were
subsequently ignored.
14. Having retired on 30.06.2013, the arrears of
pension and gratuity were paid to the Petitioner in April 2016
by the same office. In the impugned order dated 14.08.2014,
Trupti 7 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
the Deputy Director of Higher Education does not even
whisper that the management which appointed the Petitioner
had not tendered proposals for seeking clearance of
pensionary benefits and gratuity. When this was never an
objection and when the delay was never attributed by the
State to the management, we are unable to accept the
submissions of the learned AGP that the delay in payment was
on account of the management.
15. Though the learned AGP has relied upon the
pleadings in the additional affidavit, we do not find any
ground, either set out by the State or appearing from the
record before us, to attribute such delay to the management.
On the contrary, the record indicates that the State withheld
the retirement benefits and pension and that the State itself
cleared the entire benefits in April 2016, without a murmur.
16. After the Petitioner retired on 30.06.2013, it
appears that the pension papers reached Respondent No. 3, as
is indicated from the reference letters of the management
dated 29.11.2013, 25.02.2014, and 05.08.2014 regarding
Trupti 8 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
clearance of the Petitioner’s benefits. Even thereafter, the State
declined to release the retirement benefits vide impugned
communication dated 14.08.2014.
17. In view of the above, while considering prayer
clause (a), wherein the Petitioner has specifically claimed
retirement dues including pension and gratuity on the basis of
last drawn salary from Respondent Nos. 3 and 5, the Petitioner
has claimed interest from 01.07.2013.
18. Since we find that after the State passed the order
dated 14.08.2014 withholding the retirement benefits and
since the State itself cleared the outstanding dues of the
Petitioner in April 2016, we deem it appropriate to grant
statutory interest at the rate of 10% on the gratuity amount
for the period from 01.08.2013 (i.e., 30 days after retirement,
when gratuity becomes payable) till 31.03.2016, as the
gratuity was paid in April 2016.
19. The learned AGP submits that insofar as the
pension amount is concerned, an additional affidavit dated
Trupti 9 of 10
4.WP-10054-2014.odt
10.10.2017 has been filed by the Petitioner waiving her claim
for interest on the delayed payment of pension from the State,
and that the Petitioner would press the said claim
independently against the management. This is in tune with
the undertaking dated 16.03.2016 tendered by her to
Respondent no. 3.
20. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is partly
allowed to the extent of interest on gratuity, as noted above.
Insofar as the claim for interest on the pension amount is
concerned, since the Petitioner has tendered an affidavit
declaring that she does not seek interest on delayed payment
of pension from the State and intends to press the same
against the management, the Petitioner would be at liberty to
avail of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
21. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(ABHAY J.MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Trupti 10 of 10
Checking your session…