JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. Heard Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Jani, learned AGP for the respondent – State. 2. The petitioner has taken out present petition to claim interest in respect of the delay caused in payment of pension, gratuity, commuted pension, leave salary and provident fund. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner was serving as teacher in English language at the school run by respondent No.4 – education society, i.e. Atmaram Keshavlal Vidyalaya, Bavla. 3.1 It has emerged from the record that after completing service for about 30 years, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement in April 2006. His request came to be approved and allowed by the competent authority vide his order dated 8.8.2006. 3.2 After the respondent No.4 school – education society received the decision dated 8.8.2006 by the competent authority, the petitioner ought to have been paid retiral benefits including leave salary, provident fund, gratuity, commuted pension, pension, etc. 3.3 However, until 17.4.2007, gratuity and pension were not paid whereas the amount towards provident fund came to be paid on or around 7.3.2007. 3.4 Unfortunately, the petitioner has not mentioned any details with regard to the date on which the amount towards leave salary was paid. Actually, the petitioner has not mentioned the dates on which amount towards provident fund, pension, gratuity, etc. came to be paid. The said details emerged from the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved by the said delay in payment, the petitioner has taken out present petition. 4. The respondent No.4 school/education society is a grant-in-aid institution. The school education society receives grant from the government towards salary and retiral benefits of employees (teachers). 4.1 In that view of the matter, this Court agreed to entertain and decide the petition, which is, as such restricted to claim for interest. 4.2 Ordinarily, the claim for interest would involve disputed questions of fact and when such claim is made against a private person, the Court would not entertain such petition and would rather relegate the petitioner to ordinary civil remedy. 4.2 Ordinarily, the claim for interest would involve disputed questions of fact and when such claim is made against a private person, the Court would not entertain such petition and would rather relegate the petitioner to ordinary civil remedy. 4.3 However, in present case, it has emerged from factual background and in light of the fact that the claim in question is the claim by an employee/teacher for interest in respect of delay caused in payment of retiral benefits, the Court considered it appropriate to entertain and admit the petition. On 30.4.2008, the Court passed order admitting the petition and also expediting final hearing of the petition. Consequently, the petition has remained before this Court for almost 10 years and from the details mentioned by the respondent No.2 in its affidavit, it has emerged that the delay in payment of retiral benefit has undoubtedly and undisputedly occurred, inasmuch as amount towards provident fund came to be paid in March 2007 whereas the amount towards pension and gratuity came to be paid in April 2007. Consequently, the petitioner would be entitled for interest for the period of delay. In this backdrop, this Court is of the view that the case may be decided on merits. 5. So as to decide the petitioner's claim, it is necessary to turn to reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2. In the reply affidavit dated 21.10.2008, the respondent No.2 has averred and stated that:- “3. I state that the petitioner had made an application to the school dated 13.04.06, inter alia allowing the petitioner to voluntarily retire w.e.f. 31.07.06. The school in turn vide letter dated 27.04.06 forwarded the letter of voluntarily retirement of the petitioner to the officer of Respondent no.2. I state that by letter dated 07.08.06 being letter no.AGV/VRS/22001-03, the VRS of the petitioner was approved by the office of the deponent and it was further requested to the school to send the pension papers of the petitioner. I state that inspite of that the school till 10.01.07, had not sent any pension papers of the petitioner to the office of the deponent. In explanation to that the school submitted that there was no co-operation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore they were unable to send the pension papers to the office of the deponent. 4. I state that inspite of that the school till 10.01.07, had not sent any pension papers of the petitioner to the office of the deponent. In explanation to that the school submitted that there was no co-operation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore they were unable to send the pension papers to the office of the deponent. 4. I state that after receiving the necessary documents the pension was approved by order dated 17.04.07, which was initimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.04.07, and the same is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-I. 5. I state that therefore after the case was referred to the authorities there was no delay part of the authorities in sanctioning the pension and hence, there is no question of paying interest on delay in payment of pension or any other dues. 8. I state that the school vide letter dated 25.01.07 had forwarded the papers of G.P.F. of the petitioner to the authority which was sanctioned by the authority vide letter dated 07.03.07 and the payment was also made. I state that the school had forwarded the papers of the petitioner after three months from the date of voluntary retirement of the petitioner and therefore upon the instructions of the local fund office after deducting the interest of three months, the payment was made. Hence there is no default on part of the State authorities in making payment to the petitioner and hence the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.” 5.1 From above quoted details, it has emerged that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was approved vide authority's order dated 7.8.2006. It has also emerged that the office of respondent No.2 received pension papers from the school only in January 2007 i.e. on 10.1.2007. Until then, the said papers were not forwarded by the school to the office of DFO and/or pension office. From the details mentioned in the affidavit by respondent No.2, it has also emerged that after the papers were received in the office of respondent No.2 on 10.1.2007, said case papers were immediately processed and provident fund was released and paid to the petitioner on 7.3.2007. The said period cannot be considered unreasonable delay so far as office of respondent No.2 is concerned. The pension office received the papers on 3.4.2007. The said period cannot be considered unreasonable delay so far as office of respondent No.2 is concerned. The pension office received the papers on 3.4.2007. After, the pension office received the pension papers on 3.4.2007, the pension office immediately processed the papers and finalized the case of the petitioner on 17.4.2007 and immediately the pension/commuted pension was released and paid to the petitioner. From the said details, it also comes out that the concerned office has received and cleared the petitioner's pension in the same month in which it received the papers. In this background, it emerges that the office of DEO and/or Pay and Accounts Office and/or Pension Office are not responsible for causing any delay in processing the case papers of the petitioner and/or in payment of provident fund, gratuity, pension to the petitioner. Above details bring out that the delay from August 2006 until March 2007 has occurred at the end of respondent No.4. 5.2 The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 is instrumental in causing delay because the respondent No.1 being the Principal did not forward the papers to the office of DEO/Pension Office and therefore, the delay occurred. The respondent No.1 has denied the said allegation. 5.3 On this count, it is relevant to note that the respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit dated 13.9.2007 wherein respondent No.1 has alleged that:- “8. It is respectfully submitted that the present petition deserves to be rejected on the ground of suppression of material facts. It is respectfully submitted that, though the petitioner retired from service on 31st July 2006, he has not provided photographs and he has not signed the pension papers till 9th January 2007. The moment on 9th January 2007, the photographs of the petitioner were submitted to the Office Superintendent, Shri Ramdevsingh Chudasama, in presence of the Secretary of the Trust, on the every next day, i.e. 10th January 2007, by outward No.735 of 2006-07, it was personally sent to office of the District Education Officer. Therefore, there was no delay caused at the behest of the answering respondent. In fact, the petitioner himself remain idle from 31st July 2006 to 9th January 2007, for which, no one can be held responsible for such delay. Therefore, there was no delay caused at the behest of the answering respondent. In fact, the petitioner himself remain idle from 31st July 2006 to 9th January 2007, for which, no one can be held responsible for such delay. Since such vital and material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner from this Honourable Court, on the ground of suppression of material facts, the present petition deserves to be rejected.” 5.4 Above mentioned details have brought out that though the respondent No.1 may or may not be the “reason” which caused the delay, however, the delay in forwarding the papers occurred at the end of the school/education and the period of delay is almost 5 months, i.e. from August 2006 to January 2007. 6. According to the allegation by the respondent No.1, the petitioner did not submit his photographs until 9.1.2007 and therefore, the papers could not be forwarded. 6.1 The petitioner has, of course, denied the said allegation. 6.2 It is interesting to note that the said respondent No.1 has supported his own affidavit dated 13.9.2007 with another affidavit made on the same day, i.e. 13.9.2007, by one Mr. Rasikbhai Ramdas Patel, who claim to be Secretary of the Education Society. In the affidavit dated 13.9.2007, said Secretary of the Education Society (namely Mr. R.R.Patel) has averred and stated that, “the petitioner had submitted the photographs to one Mr. Ramdevsinh Chudasama on 9.1.2007”. 6.3 As against the said affidavit dated 13.9.2007 by Mr. R.R. Patel, said Mr. Ramdevsing Chudasama has made an affidavit dated 19.9.2008 wherein Mr. Ramdevsing Chudasama has averred and stated that, “the statement made by Mr. R.R. Patel in his affidavit dated 13.9.2007 is incorrect and that actually, the petitioner had submitted the photographs in the month next to the date on which the period of his notice for voluntary retirement expired (i.e. 31.7.2006) and the petitioner had not given him the photographs on 9.1.2007. 6.4. The petitioner has stated and averred in the rejoinder that :- “6. The petitioner was quite keen to receive his retiral/dues the earliest. A man with reasonable prudence cannot think of one remaining idle for his rights. Repeated request/reminders were given to the respondent- principal for early settlement of the petitioner's dues. As there was no positive response from the respondent, the petitioner has to resort to written mode of reminders since 10.01.2007. A man with reasonable prudence cannot think of one remaining idle for his rights. Repeated request/reminders were given to the respondent- principal for early settlement of the petitioner's dues. As there was no positive response from the respondent, the petitioner has to resort to written mode of reminders since 10.01.2007. Before that the petitioner has inquired with the District Education Office-respondent no.2 and having came to know that no papers were yet received upto 9th Jan 2007, the petitioner has visited the office of respondent no-1 on 10th- the very next day with his brother and one of known person – Shri Kanaksinh R. Vaghela. As the response, as usual, was very erratic and pretentious, having lost the confidence, the petitioner has immediately preferred written communication. Need be both the persons are ready to draw an affidavit to that effect. It is worth nothing that the respondent is trying to create an impression that the respondent has been careful and wanted to help the petitioner but it as at the fault of the petitioner formalities could not be completed. Had the intention of the respondent good, there could have been some kind of attempt to bring it to the notice that some deficiency is to be rectified. There is no whisper about a single written communication between 1.8.2006 to 10th Jan 2007 by the respondent to the petitioner. This reflects that the respondent was not at all either bothered about settlement or was deliberately trying to delay the same. At the request of Shri Rasikbhai- person filing the affidavit dated 13.9.2007 and Annexed as Annexure-I, voluntary service of discharging function as a teacher upto 12th August, 2006 was rendered by the petitioner as no replacement of his was available to the school and hence there was likelihood of the students suffering from loss of education/study to be imparted during 1st August to 12th August 2006. Means the petitioner was daily and regularly attending the school upto 12th August 2006 even after resignation i.e. the petitioner was physically present at the school and in fact the photographs and signature and all other formalities were completed during that period only. Means the petitioner was daily and regularly attending the school upto 12th August 2006 even after resignation i.e. the petitioner was physically present at the school and in fact the photographs and signature and all other formalities were completed during that period only. For sake of argument even if one accept that formalities like supplying photograph and putting up signature were left out then also the same could have been completed during this period as the petitioner was regularly attending the school for the noble purpose of not allowing suffering of the study of the students.” 7. On conjoint reading of the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 and the affidavit filed by respondent no.2 it has emerged that the pension papers/case papers of the petitioner were, undisputedly, forwarded to the concerned office i.e. District Education Office/Pension office on 10.1.2007. 7.1 In this view of the matter, the obligation to forward the case papers/pension papers was on the Education Society. 7.2 Therefore, whether the education society should hold the Principal responsible for the delay or not is internal matter of the society and it may take whatever view or action it considers appropriate and necessary. 7.3 However, the Education Society cannot escape or wriggle out from the responsibility/application of forwarding pension papers/case papers without delay to the competent Officer. 7.4 Having regard to the fact that undisputedly the papers were forwarded only on 10.1.2007, the Society is, undoubtedly and undisputedly, responsible for the period of delay caused in matter of payment of gratuity, Provident Fund and Pension/commuted pension i.e. from 8.8.2006 to 9.1.2007 and consequently, it is responsible to pay interest for the period of delay. 8. Under the circumstances, following order is passed: [a] The total/composite amount payable/paid to the petitioner towards Gratuity, Provident Fund, Commuted pension/pension shall be taken into account and in respect of the said total amount the respondent no.4 Education Society shall pay interest to the petitioner at 8% for the period from 8.8.2006 to 9.01.2007. [b] It is clarified that if the society considers it necessary to hold the Principal liable and responsible for said delay and/or to take any action on this count against the Principal then the Society is free to do so, however, in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for such direction against Principal. [b] It is clarified that if the society considers it necessary to hold the Principal liable and responsible for said delay and/or to take any action on this count against the Principal then the Society is free to do so, however, in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for such direction against Principal. However, direction against any individual/private person cannot be passed by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction and therefore the Court has resisted from passing such direction against individual/private person. However, the Education Society/School is grant-in-aid institute and that therefore, it cannot escape or wriggle out from the responsibility. [c] Further, in view of the fact that the petitioner has neither mentioned the details on which leave salary/leave encashment was paid by respondent no.4, the petitioner is not entitled for any direction for payment of interest or relief with regard to leave salary/leave encashment etc. With aforesaid clarification and direction, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (Petition partly allowed)