Senior citizen fighting for gratuity, finally gets relief years after retirement

Correspondent

NewsBits.in

A 70-year-old retired senior accounts afficer has finally received relief after fighting for his gratuity for nearly
eight years. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Aurangabad Bench, allowed his plea and directed the government to process his retirement dues.

This victory, though long delayed, is a significant step forward—not just for the retired man but also for thousands of pensioners across Maharashtra who face similar circumstances and run from pillar to post, seeking the amount that is rightfully theirs. 

A Case of Waiting, Wondering, and Withheld Dues

Haribhau Dewaji Lanjewar had retired from the Public Works Department (PWD) on 31 July 2015 after decades of service. At the time of retirement, his pension was sanctioned and released, but a major component—his Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) amounting to nearly Rs. 10 lakh—was held back.

That was strange. It happened because the department had propsed an inquiry against him. Not an actual inquiry—just a proposal. No charge sheet was served. No inquiry was held. Just a vague cloud of suspicion was enough to keep his money from him.

Over the next 10 years, Lanjewar kept knocking on doors—calling, writing letters, and making personal visits to government offices to ask about his gratuity. Despite his age and growing health problems, Mr. Lanjewar did not give up. He contacted the Department and made oral representation.

He even made formal written complaints repeatedly. In 2022, he had to undergo surgery and became even more dependent on others for mobility and daily care. Yet the government still Finally, in 2025, he received a letter from the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Nagpur, dated 11 June 2025. T

he letter clearly stated that Rs. 9,77,235/- in gratuity had been authorized for payment. The Auditor General’s office had done its job. Lanjewar approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Nagpur. We filed Original Application No. 331/2025, along withMiscellaneous Application No. 207/2025, seeking condonation of delay for the 3032 days that had passed since his retirement.

The Legal Challenge: Eight years of delay

From a legal standpoint, filing a case after such a long delay—over eight years—is an uphill battle. Courts and tribunals often reject such petitions outright unless the delay is explained satisfactorily. But this was not a case of negligence.

This was a story of a retired man who genuinely trusted the system to do the right thing, and who waited patiently while departments dragged their feet. We argued before the Hon’ble Member (Judicial), Shri A.N. Karmarkar, that the
delay was caused by:

Lanjewar’s deteriorating health and medical conditions, his repeated documented attempts to get information from the PWD, the fact that no chargesheet or formal inquiry had ever been issued, his limited mobility, dependence on others and lack of legal awareness apart from his genuine belief that the matter was still under consideration.

The case was backed by claims with medical certificates, departmental communications, and the crucial 2025 authorization letter from the Accountant General. On 28 July 2025, the Tribunal delivered its verdict: the delay was condoned and Lanjewar’s application was admitted.

While the Tribunal noted that Lanjewar could have approached earlier, it emphasized that justice should not be denied to senior citizens simply because of procedural delays—especially when the fault lies with the department, not the retiree.

The Tribunal did impose a nominal cost of Rs. 1000/-, payable by Mr. Lanjewar to the State, as a token gesture to maintain procedural fairness. But the real outcome was far more important: the Tribunal upheld Mr. Lanjewar’s right to receive his full
gratuity, clearing the way for final relief in the main application.

Why This Case Matters

This ruling is more than just a win for one man—it highlights a systemic issue in how the retired employees should be treated.
Every year, many senior citizens across Maharashtra retire from government service with the hope of living their post-retirement life in peace.

But many find their dues delayed—sometimes for years—because of unclear departmental policies, incomplete paperwork, or vague disciplinary “proposals” that never go anywhere. Worse, these retirees are often not informed about the status of their cases. Theyare not served chargesheets, nor given updates.

They’re just left hanging—with their money stuck in the system. Lanjewar’s case shows that such inaction is not just unfair—it’s unlawful, and it can be challenged.
"I have always believed that the law must serve people, not paperwork. This case meant a lot to me because it wasn’t about big money or fame. It was about restoring dignity to a senior citizen who had done his duty to the state—and was
being denied what was rightfully his...", says senior Advocate, Shahid P Sayed, who provided legal assistance of Lanjewar. 

His calm, polite demeanor and unwavering belief in justice inspired me deeply. This was not a man trying to “get more” from the government. He just wanted what he had earned. To all other retirees or families of pensioners facing similar delays, let this case be a message: you don’t have to suffer in silence.
If your gratuity or pension is being withheld without valid reason:

1. Ask for written explanations from your department;
2. Get a copy of your Pension Payment Order (PPO) and authorization letters;
3. Consult a lawyer who can help you approach the appropriate Tribunal or
Court;
4. Keep copies of all your communication and follow-up letters.
Tribunals like the MAT are there to ensure that senior citizens are not forgotten. But
you have to take that first step.
Conclusion
Justice may be slow—but it is not absent. The MAT’s ruling in favour of Lanjewar is a reminder that when citizens persist and present the truth with dignity and clarity, the system can respond fairly.

Let us hope this verdict also nudges government departments to act more promptly and humanely when it comes to retiree benefits. After all, these are the people who kept the system running for decades. It is time the system took better care of them in return.

Case Details at a Glance:

 Case Name: Haribhau Dewaji Lanjewar v. State of Maharashtra
 Tribunal: Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Nagpur
 Delay Condoned: 3032 Days
 Judge: Hon’ble Shri A.N. Karmarkar, J
 Advocate: Shahid Parvez Sayed