After woman, who took voluntary retirement, approached MAT complaining of non-payment of retirement dues, MAT asks state to conduct inquiry
Complainant Namita Talkar (right) and her husband Nathuram alias Nandu Talkar who moved MAT to get her retirement benefits
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) has directed Raigad district administration, Khopoli Municipal Council (KMC) and Panvel Municipal Corporation (PMC) to clear all retirement dues with interest of a retired assistant estate manager within a month. The complainant, a 62-year-old woman, did not get any retirement benefits as she opted for voluntary retirement a year before she was supposed to retire. The tribunal has also directed the state to conduct an inquiry and fix the responsibility for the delay.
ADVERTISEMENT
The case
The complainant, Namita Talkar, worked with the Khopoli Municipal Council from 1995 to 2013 and thereafter she was transferred to PMC where she worked as an assistant estate manager from July 10, 2013 to August 31, 2017. She was supposed to retire on December 31, 2018 after attaining the age of superannuation, however she opted for voluntary retirement, which was sanctioned by the commissioner and director of municipal administration and municipal council administration in an order dated July 25, 2018. The order was sent to PMC for further action to release her retirement benefits.
However, Talkar did not get any of the benefits for years. Her husband Nathuram, 65, told mid-day, “My wife had opted for voluntary retirement due to my health condition and had informed her superiors well in advance. But even after her retirement, she was deprived of the benefits. Despite several letters to the officials concerned at the PMC and KMC, she did not get it for five years. The officials did not even cite a reason for the delay. So, we decided to move the MAT in October 2022 to seek justice.”
Also read: Mumbai: ‘Traffic police, BMC, killed my mother’
MAT observation
Their lawyer, advocate Rameshwar Panchal, said, “The tribunal took cognisance of the complaint on the day it was filed and issued notices to the parties concerned, asking them to submit their response in a week. Though the municipal authorities filed the replies, the tribunal was not satisfied with them.”
In the six-page order, MAT Member Judge A P Kurhekar stated, “It is disgusting that even till date of filing of original application, no steps were taken by the Respondents and it is only after filing of original application, in pursuance of direction given by the tribunal certain steps were taken. Ultimately, gratuity is paid on December 13, 2022 and leave encashment is paid on December 9, 2022, provisional pension for six months, i.e. up to February 2018, was paid quite belatedly on November 14, 2022. Regular pension is sanctioned quite belatedly as seen from the order of the accountant general dated November 29, 2022. The issue therefore remains about the interest on the belated payment on retirement dues.”
The order further clarified, “There was no legal hurdle to withhold retiral benefits after the retirement of the applicant. There was neither any criminal prosecution nor departmental enquiry against her.” The MAT directed the respondents to pay interest on belated payment of gratuity, leave encashment and pension in respect of the period beyond the stipulated period at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund within a month.
The rules
Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 provides necessary steps to be taken by the head of the office in the matter of payment of retiral dues. As the applicant had taken voluntary retirement, therefore Rule 118(3) is applicable which inter-alia provides that in the case of a government servant retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the head of the office shall promptly inform the audit officer concerned, as soon as the fact of such retirement becomes known to him.
Meanwhile, Rule 120 states that the head of the office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers two years before the date on which they are going to retire. As the applicant was due to retire on superannuation on August 31, 2017, the pension papers ought to have been commenced two years before that day, as per Rule 120. However, no such steps were taken. The worst part is that even after voluntary retirement no further expeditious steps were taken to release retirement dues.
‘Historic judgment’
Advocate Panchal said, “This is a historic judgment. The MAT has not only ensured that the applicant is given all her dues with interest but the officials concerned will be taken to task. Such orders are necessary as it would leave a different effect on the babus who are indifferent to the agony of retired employees.”
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
