Important Point—Interest can be granted on delayed payment of pension.

1. All the above petitions have been admitted by this Court on 8.3.2011.

2. The order passed by this Court on 8.3.2011 reads as under:“

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Union has no authority to file the complaint on behalf of retired employees. He further submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer as such between the retired employees and the petitioner herein. He further submits that the complaint was filed in 2004 making grievance about the pension which according to the complainant was due to be paid in 1996. Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint filed by the respondent Union was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these writ petitions, relying on the pleadings in the petitions and grounds raised therein, may be allowed.

2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the relevant rules and in particular Rule 129B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and submits that once the petitioners have granted pension and taken decision to pay pension, in that case interest should necessarily follow though members of the respondent Union were entitled to receive pension in the year 1996. However, the pension is paid in 2006 with retrospective effect. However, the interest for the relevant period has not been paid. Therefore, the Counsel would submit that these petitions may not be allowed.

3. Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below and more particularly the discussion in para 12 of the impugned judgment, I am not inclined to grant any interim relief. The relevant rule has been considered by the Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment. Considering Rule 129B of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, I am not persuaded to take different view. However, some arguable questions have been raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that after retirement whether relationship of employee and employer exists between the petitioner and members of the respondents Union and also filing of the complaint in 2004 making grievance of nonpayment of pension from the date of retirement i.e. in 1996.

4. Rule. Mr. Shelke & A.G.P. Mr. Kale, waive service of notice for the respective respondents.

5. Interim relief refused.”

3. Since a common issue is involved in all these matters and considering that the petitioner – Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth is common in all these petitions, these matters have been taken up together for final hearing by the consent of the parties.

4. The petitioner – University is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7.11.2008 and similar judgments delivered by the Industrial Court by which interest at the rate of 10% on the pension amount has been granted.

5. Shri Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioner – University has strenuously criticized the impugned judgments.

6. Shri Shahane contends that firstly there was no deliberate delay caused by the petitioner – University. The University has been engaged in litigation on various issues for a long time. Since the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules are applicable, the respondent – employees could not have approached the Industrial Court invoking the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act').

7. He further submits that the University can neither create posts nor can the University grant pension to any employee. It is the State Government, which exercises its powers under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1982 Rules'). The ultimate responsibility to pay the pension rests on the shoulders of the State, which has been impleaded as a respondent in these petitions under the orders of this Court date