Vinodray Fuiachand Shah v. State of Gujarat — 1996 DIGILAW 83 (GUJ)

ORDER : S. K. Keshote, J. The present case exhibits an example how a retired employee is harassed and he could not get his retirement benefits unless he has approached to this Court and this Court has protected him. Not only this, but even after the respondent have realised that the petitioner is entitled for the pension and retirement benefits and those benefits have been given to him, still, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on the arrears of the pension on the ground that they are not at fault. The question that arose is as to whether the petitioner is at fault and if the petitioner is not at fault, this is a case where a retired person has been deprived of this money and he has also the right to pray to the Court to reasonably compensate him for the loss he suffered by way of interest in case the amount would have been paid to him in time. After retirement, it is a fact that the salary and other allowances which an employee is getting are reduced to substantial extent. To have a reasonable amount be meet with the bare expenses, a retired person normally invests the amount of pension and the retirement benefits which he got in a long term deposit so that he may earn interest. 2-3. The facts of the case which are no more in controversy may be briefly stated. The petitioner who was a professor, after serving at different colleges in the State of Gujarat had joined the services at Arts and Science College, at Patna (North Gujarat), Dist: Mehsana on 20th July 1954. He sought voluntary retirement on 13th July, 1983 on which day he was holding the post of Principal of the College, which was accepted. Though, the day on which he sought voluntary retirement, the services of the petitioner were not pensionable, but thereafter, as per the policy decision of the State of Gujarat taken by resolution dated 15-10-1984, the services were made pensionable with effect from 1-4-1982. The petitioner had opted for pension scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for terminal benefits such as, pension, gratuity etc. through proper channel to respondent No. 2 who is the appropriate authority. The petitioner had opted for pension scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application for terminal benefits such as, pension, gratuity etc. through proper channel to respondent No. 2 who is the appropriate authority. After raising certain queries here and there, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28-12-1987 granted provisional pension as well as ad hoc gratuity to the petitioner. But then respondent No. 2 vide order dated 30-12-1988 discontinued the payment of ad hoc pension to the petitioner. The ground which has been given for discontinuation of pension is that the pension scheme is not applicable to those teachers who sought voluntary retirement. None of the parties raised issues in this case to take decision on the question whether the teachers who got voluntary retirement can be deprived of the benefits of pension or not. But I have my own reservations in the matter. The petitioner, then made representations, but as usual, the officers of the respondents did not care about the possible hardships and difficulties of the retired employees. The petitioner after waiting for sufficient time in the hope of getting reliefs at the hands of the respondents ultimately constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. On 15-12-1989, this Court issued rule and interim relief in terms of para 11(c) has also been granted on certain conditions. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, it appears that the Government has realised their mistake that the teachers who got voluntary retirement cannot be denied the pensionary benefits and accordingly, a resolution has been passed to extend the benefits of pension and other benefits to the teachers who sought voluntary retirement. The, petitioner has been paid Rs. 3,38,609.18 ps. on 22-7-92 towards the arrears of pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 6-4-95, the Court observed that now only the claim of the petitioner regarding interest on the arrears at the rate of 12 per cent from 30th December 1988 survives. The learned counsel who appeared for the respondents stated that he wants to place on record the facts which would indicate that there is no delay on the part of the Government in completing the pension papers of the petitioner as well as to make payment of arrears thereof. Accordingly time was granted. The learned counsel who appeared for the respondents stated that he wants to place on record the facts which would indicate that there is no delay on the part of the Government in completing the pension papers of the petitioner as well as to make payment of arrears thereof. Accordingly time was granted. The matter has come up before this Court on 26th September, 1995 and the Court has taken note of the reply which has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have come up with the case that the Education Department vide resolution dated 15-7-91 extended the benefit of pension scheme to 21 cases including the petitioner as a special case. After 15-7-91 the case of the petitioner regarding his pension could not be promptly finalised as the final pay was not fixed by the college in which the petitioner was serving. The college submitted the pension papers after final fixation of pay of the petitioner to the respondents on 25-4-92 which were received by the office of the Commissioner of Higher Education on 29-4-92. Thereafter, those papers were forwarded to the Director of Pension & Provident Fund who in turn finalised and issued Final pay order on 23-6-92. I fail to understand how it can be said that the Government has not made delay in finalising the pension case of the petitioner. The petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 1989. The matter has been decided regarding his entitlement to pension and other terminal benefits on 15-7-91. Thereafter, the college has taken some time to make fixation of pay of the petitioner. But the petitioner is not in any manner responsible for these delays. The petitioner is not at fault. It is not the case of the respondents that the delay in finalisation of the case of the pension of the petitioner occurred due to some lapses or inaction on the part of the petitioner. It is because of lethargic action on the part of the respondents which is usually there in the matter of pension of retired Government servants that the delay has occurred. The delay is only attributable to the respondents. Merely because some time has been taken by the college in finalising the papers of the petitioner, other respondents cannot suppress their own delays. The delay is only attributable to the respondents. Merely because some time has been taken by the college in finalising the papers of the petitioner, other respondents cannot suppress their own delays. Moreover, in case the college has made some delay in dealing with the pension papers of the petitioner, how the petitioner is responsible or accountable. The Commissioner of Higher Education should have taken care to see that the college has expeditiously completed the pension papers of the petitioner and sent the same to it. There is no material on record to show that any action has been by the Commissioner of Higher Education in this respect after 15th July 1991. 5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. I am satisfied that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are wholly responsible for the delay in finalising the pension case of the petitioner. The petitioner should have been paid the amount of pension and other retirement benefits within a month from the date of passing of the resolution dated 15-10-84 instead of paying him only provisional pension and provisional amount of gratuity. Any how, the amount should have been paid to the petitioner within reasonable time i.e. after one month from the date of resolution dated 7/10-11-88. Even after filing this writ petition, nothing has been done expeditiously in this respect. The petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of huge amount of Rs. 3,38.609.18 ps. for a considerable long period. In the writ petition, the petitioner has claimed interest on the arrears of the pension and other retirement benefits from 14th July 1983. But I do not accept this claim nor it can be legitimately claimed because the pension scheme itself has been notified vide resolution dated 15th October 1984. Under that scheme, case of the employees, as per the respondents, who sought voluntary retirement was not covered. The next resolution has been passed on 7/10-11-88 extending the benefits to the teachers of non-Government colleges who sought voluntary retirement. Still the point whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit or not has remained in controversy. The petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition only on 14th December, 1989 and that is precisely the date from which he can be awarded interest on the arrears of the pension and terminal benefits. Still the point whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit or not has remained in controversy. The petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition only on 14th December, 1989 and that is precisely the date from which he can be awarded interest on the arrears of the pension and terminal benefits. The next question which arises is the rate at which interest on the arrears has to be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner claims interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any authority before me wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Along with this petition, the petitioner has filed a copy of the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1429/ 92 decided on 22-6-94 and in that case interest was awarded at the rate of 12% per annum. That was a case of delayed payment of gratuity, commuted pension and arrears of pension etc. Copy of another decision in Special Civil Application No. 305/88 on 13-2-91 has also been placed for the consideration by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in that case also, the interest has been awarded at the rate of 12% per annum on the arrears of terminal benefits. Reference may also be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S. S. Sandhawalia reported in ( AIR 1994 SC 1377 ). That was a case where certain monetary benefits which were payable to the respondent therein was paid after making considerable delay. The Supreme Court has awarded interest in that case at the rate of 12% per annum. Having taken into consideration all these three decisions. I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for the interest, on the arrears of pension and other retirement benefits at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 14th December, 1982 to 21st July 1992. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby directed to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,38,609.18 ps. from 4th December, 1989 to 21st July 1992. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby directed to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 3,38,609.18 ps. from 4th December, 1989 to 21st July 1992. The amount of interest payable at the aforesaid rate or the said amount for the period aforesaid shall be determined within a period of two months from the receipt of, Certified copy of this order and the amount so determined and found payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him within a period of one month (thereafter. The petitioner, a retired teacher, has unnecessarily been harassed and as such it is a fit case where exemplary cost has to be awarded to him. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the petitioner Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost to this petition. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.