1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-
[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay arrears of pension of Rs.51,075/- to be paid from 09.07.2001 to 30.06.2005 with interest at 12% per annum.
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay amount of Rs.38,922/- illegal deduction from the pension of the petitioner with 12% per annum interest.
[C] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay Rs.9354/- (Rs.829 per month) illegally recovered from the pension of the petitioner from January 2007 with interest at 12% per annum.
[D] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay Rs.829/- per month illegally reduced from the pension of the petitioner till date and direct to pay full pension immediately.
[E] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay Rs.52,274/- towards salary of 118 Earned Leave with 12% per annum interest from the date of retirement of the petitioner.
[F] Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay commuted pension from the date of retirement with appropriate interest of 12% per annum [G] During the pendency and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner full eligible pension.
[H] ......... "
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide order dated 01.02.1978. The petitioner served respondent no.1 for more than 22 years and voluntarily resigned from the service w.e.f. 09.07.2001. Since his pension was fixed without considering the notional pay with increment the petitioner made representation to the respondent authority,. The respondent on realizing the mistake, re-fixed the basic pension of the petitioner from July, 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was given 'No Due Certificate', the respondent deducted an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month from March, 2004 to June, 2005 after a period of two years of his retirement. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent had not paid him leave enacashment at the time of his retirement and also the commuted pension, Since the grievances of the petitioner were not redressed, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 17919 of 2006, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2006. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.11.2006 to the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent without affording any opportunity or any reasons, deducted an amount of Rs.829/- from the pension. Being aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondent, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 22049 of 2007, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.09.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that till date, the respondent has not taken any decision on the grievances of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. So far as the grievance as regards commuted pension is concerned, it transpires from the record that due to financial constraints, the respondent Nagarpalika is not able to pay the commuted pension to any of the employees after the year 2002. However, commuted pension is not a right of the employee and it is in the nature of advance loan. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim commuted pension as a matter of right.
4. So far as the grievance as regards leave encashment is concerned, the petitioner retired from the service w.e.f. 09.07.2001 and in the year 2012 the petitioner claimed the difference of leave encashment after a period of 11 years. It appears from the record that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was entitled for only 182 days leave for encashment and accordingly, an amount of Rs.79,805/- had already been paid to the petitioner towards leave encashment of 182 days in the year 2001.
5. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondents were completely justified in denying the benefits claimed by the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/