Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 60 (GUJ)

SURESH O. SHAH v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2005-02-03

J.N.BHATT

body2005
J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE only question, which comes up for consideration and adjudication in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amount of interest as claimed in para 10 of the petition for delayed payment of retiral dues and benefits, particulars of which have been highlighted in a tabular form in the petition, which this Court has considered and examined. ( 2 ) THE claim of the interest on the delayed payment of the retiral dues is countenanced by the respondents on various grounds by filing an affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 by one Collector, Panchmahal. This Court has considered the objections raised against the claim made by the petitioner in this petition for the interest on the delayed payment. Learned Advocates appearing for both the parties are also heard. ( 3 ) FOLLOWING aspects from the factual profile of the case on hand and upon submissions have remained unquestionable. In otherwords their appears to be no dispute on the following proposition and aspects. (I) That the amount of gratuity has been paid with the interest @ 12% p. a. within the reasonable period of time, despite the fact that departmental proceedings were going on against the petitioner. (II) The petitioner was working as a Dy. Mamlatdar and he retired on 30th August, 1995 upon reaching the age of superannuation. The claim for interest on the ground that there was a delay in making the payment of amount of retiral dues to the petitioner could be decided in the light of the facts of the given case. If there is a delay without any reasonable explanation on the part of the respondents, obviously, it is always open for the Court to grant an award of rate of interest against the delayed payment of the retiral dues to the retired employee. (III) As stated hereinabove, as far as, payment of gratuity is concerned, interest as per the Government Policy @ 12% p. a. has already been paid, therefore, that question does not assume any survival value. (III) As stated hereinabove, as far as, payment of gratuity is concerned, interest as per the Government Policy @ 12% p. a. has already been paid, therefore, that question does not assume any survival value. (IV) In so far as, the interest on the other dues, payment of interest on other retiral dues is concerned, it is amply clear from the record and the submissions that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the misappropriation and other charges came to be culminated under the verdict of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal on 20th January, 1988 and thereafter the petitioner came to be reduced in rank by way of punishment as a result of the departmental inquiry in which he was found delinquent and guilty. (V) It will be interesting to refer that the petitioner for the first time claimed interest on the delayed payment by writing a letter to the respondents on 25th January, 2002. Nothing appears to have been proceeded during the period from 1999-2002 as the department itself was considering for the payment of retiral dues. The decision rendered by the Tribunal as aforesaid has become final. (VI) The point which requires to be noted at this juncture is with regard to the filing of the Civil Suit. The respondent-corporation has filed a Civil Suit in the Competent Civil Court being Civil Suit No. 42 of 1987 for the recovery of the amount of General Provident Fund, as a result of the imposing of the penalty in the departmental proceedings and confirmed in the Tribunal. (VII) The petitioner came to be reduced to the rank of Clerk to the Dy. Mamlatdar against the action of the reduction in the rank. The petitioner has prayed in the Tribunal by filing an Appeal No. 319/1994 against the judgment wherein the judgment was rendered on 9/8/1995. (VIII) The Civil Suit came to be filed by the Respondent-Corporation for the recovery of the overpayment in the light of the departmental punishment. During the pendency of the Civil Suit, the petitioner had also filed SCA 411/96 seeking direction against the Respondent-Authority to pay retiral dues and benefits. The copy whereof is not produced on record. It is orally submitted, that the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh considerations. It is jointly submitted that, the petitioner was allowed to retire, as such as, Dy. The copy whereof is not produced on record. It is orally submitted, that the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh considerations. It is jointly submitted that, the petitioner was allowed to retire, as such as, Dy. Mamlatdar and accordingly, the assessment of the retiral dues had been prepared. (IX) Apart from that there is no dispute about the fact, that First Appeal No. 1959/94 against the order and judgment of the Civil Court rendered in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/87 is pending before this Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as a Clerk. By the order dated 29/11/1995 the leave encashment was calculated at Rs. 17,096/- and it was to be paid by the Mamlatdar, Godhra, as per the order dated 29/11/95. The amount of Rs. 44,454/- was to be recovered from the petitioner, as per the order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/87 against which, the First Appeal No. 1950/94 is filed and pending before this Court for adjudication. The order dated 28/1/1998 of the Tribunal is also challenged in Appeal No. 319/94. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute about the fact, that the petitioner has been paid the retiral benefits in terms of higher pay scale by the order dated 5/8/98. By the order dated 21/8/1998, the pay fixation of petitioner was accordingly, made and verification was also made by the Local Fund on 21/8/1998. The leave encashment amount was paid to the petitioner on 9/6/99 by the Mamlatdar, Godhra. ( 6 ) IN so far as, the payment of encashment of balance leave is concerned the application came to be made by the petitioner on 27/2/1997 for commuted pension. The receipt of which is given to the petitioner on 31/3/1997. After superannuation of the petitioner he had made an application on 27/2/1997 for commuted pension. Almost two years after the date of superannuation, the request in the form of letter was furnished by the Respondent-Authority and in turn the Respondent-Authority through Director of Pension and Provident Fund to submit the medical board certificate, which came to be produced by the petitioner before the authority on 16/7/1999. Thereafter the commuted pension was sanctioned on 31/8/1999 and as a result of which, an amount of Rs. 51,079/- has already been paid by the District Treasury Officer, Panchmahal, Godhra. Thereafter the commuted pension was sanctioned on 31/8/1999 and as a result of which, an amount of Rs. 51,079/- has already been paid by the District Treasury Officer, Panchmahal, Godhra. ( 7 ) AFTER having taken into consideration the total cumulative effect of the factual profile the pendency of the litigation of the parties and the factum of the departmental actions the claim for interest on different retiral dues and benefits does not appear to be in any way just, reasonable and permissible, as there does not seem to be any serious wanton indifference on the part of the respondent-authority and in absence of such delay, which can be attributed to the respondent-authority. There is no question of grant of any rate of interest on the delayed payment. It is a matter of settled proposition of law, that in order of earn the interest on the delayed payment, it is incumbent upon the petitioner first to establish, that there was a delay and that it was attributable by some over act or negligence or conduct on the part of the respondent-authorities and that, on account of indolence and indifferenceness the payment came late to be made. If this aspects are not established obviously, there would not arise any consideration of granting of interest on the delayed payment. It is, therefore, this Court is of the clear opinion, and in the light of the entire factual profile and the relevant proposition of law and the pendency of the proceedings in different forms including this High Court, we find no merits in this petition and, therefore, there is no any case for interference in exercise of our extraordinary, plenary, discretionary, equitable, Constitutional writ jurisdiction for the grant of the claim made by the petitioner in this petition. With the result, the petition deserves only and only one legal fate of rejection. Therefore, it shall stand rejected. Rule discharged. No costs. .