ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Rebello, J.)

1. Rule. Heard forthwith.

2. The issue, which arises in this petition, is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for what the petitioner contends is delay in payment of gratuity.

3. A few facts may be set out. The petitioner was in the service of respondents. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him in the year 1996. He retired on 28.2.1999, but the inquiry was continued. An Inquiry Officer came to be appointed on 12.4.2001. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 31.10.2001. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and called on the petitioner to show cause. The petitioner filed a reply on 15.9.2004. The disciplinary authority, being not satisfied with the reply, issued a show cause notice dated 26.7.2005 and thereafter was pleased to impose punishment by order dated 31.2.2006. The punishment imposed was deduction of 10% from the petitioner’s pension. The gratuity in fact was paid on 18.4.2006.

4. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has sought to rely on the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and more specifically Rule 129-A and Rule 130(1)(c) as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document