Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The number of retired officers and employees in the municipal corporation is rising rapidly. Every month, at least 15 officials and staff members retire. However, apart from the provident fund (PF), the administration is not paying any other dues to these retired employees. As a result, around 50 to 60 retired employees visit the accounts section daily, following up on their pending payments. Notably, even after two or three years of retirement, many are yet to receive their outstanding dues.
For a long time, the administration cited low revenue recovery and high expenses as the reason for non-payment. However, in the past two to three months, the treasury has seen a substantial inflow of funds. Over ₹100 crore was collected through interest waiver on property tax. The road widening drive caused a stir among citizens, and in response, there were long queues at the Town Planning section by people seeking to legalise their properties under the "Gunthewari" scheme. This drive alone brought in over ₹50–60 crore in revenue. In addition, substantial funds are flowing in through water tax, town planning fees, and other sources.
Now, there is no shortage of funds, yet the administration is still unwilling to release the rightful dues of retired employees, leading to repeated allegations from them. At the time of retirement, every employee has planned for their future, children's employment, marriages, building a home, and other dreams. Retired staff are accusing the administration of crushing these dreams by denying them their dues. Currently, more than 500 retired employees are owed ₹49 crore in total. Some individuals are owed ₹5 lakh, while others are waiting for as much as ₹7 lakh.
Harassment by the establishment section
In 2009, Mohammad Hafeez retired as a sectional engineer. It has been 16 years since his retirement. Now, the Establishment Section has sent him a notice stating that his confidential reports (CRs) are incomplete. This has raised serious questions among many retired employees, why didn’t the Establishment Section point out these discrepancies 16 years ago? They are questioning the timing and intent of the notice, seeing it as unjust harassment of a long-retired employee.