Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 383 (GUJ)

Chandrakant Ramanlal Gandhi v. State of Gujarat

2018-02-02

BIREN VAISHNAV, M.R.SHAH

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. ADMIT. Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present Appeal is taken up for final hearing today. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.11.2017 in Special Civil Application No. 11464/2013 by which the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the original petitioner for the amount of gratuity, appellant herein-original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. Heard Ms. Vashi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original petitioner and Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein-original petitioner prayed for the following relief: “Quashing and setting the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 herein dated 21.05.2011 as well as the order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 at Annexure "A" colly and direct the respondents to forthwith grant the retirement dues (such as Gratuity, GPF, leave pay etc.) including the suspension allowance for the period from 16.06.1998 to 23.04.1999, as well as compassionate pension and an amount of Rs. 31,324/- which was lying in the drawer at the time when he was made to retire, to the petitioner; including the compassionate pension; with interest @ of 10% per annum from the date of the retirement of the petitioner, (Amended as per the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court)” 5.1 Therefore, including other claims, the original petitioner also prayed for the amount of gratuity. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has held that the original petitioner is not entitled to the compassionate pension as a matter of right and thereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the original petitioner for grant of compassionate pension. However, the learned Single Judge has granted/allowed the interest on the delayed payment of suspension allowance as well as the interest on delayed payment of provident fund. However, the learned Single Judge has granted/allowed the interest on the delayed payment of suspension allowance as well as the interest on delayed payment of provident fund. However, without any further discussion and/or considering the claim of the petitioner with respect to the gratuity amount, the learned Single Judge has rejected the said claim. 5.2 Considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, it appears and does not seem to be in dispute that while rejecting the claim for gratuity, the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason whatsoever and/or the learned Single Judge has not discussed at all with respect to the claim for gratuity. The only observations that are made are in paragraph nos. 11 and 11.4, which reads as under: “11. So far as the claim for gratuity and compassionate pension are concerned, the respondents have disputed the said claim on the ground that since the petitioner came to be compulsorily retired for misconduct, the petitioner is not entitled for the said benefit. 11.4 Therefore, in respect of his claim for pension and gratuity, any direction cannot be passed by the Court.” 5.3 Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that while discussing the claim for compassionate pension, simultaneously the learned Single Judge has also dismissed the claim for gratuity. It cannot be disputed that the claim for compassionate pension and gratuity stand on different footing. As observed hereinabove, as such, there is no discussion whatsoever with respect to the claim for gratuity and without assigning any reasons and/or considering in detail the claim of gratuity, the learned Single Judge has rejected the claim for gratuity. 6. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as the rejecting claim of gratuity deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the claim for gratuity in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is reported that against the impugned judgment and order, against the grant of interest on delayed payment of suspension allowance and provident fund amount, State is desirous to prefer Appeal, and therefore, it is observed that as and when such an Appeal is preferred the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. It is reported that against the impugned judgment and order, against the grant of interest on delayed payment of suspension allowance and provident fund amount, State is desirous to prefer Appeal, and therefore, it is observed that as and when such an Appeal is preferred the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present Appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition to the extent of rejecting the claim for gratuity is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider the claim for gratuity and to consider the same in accordance with law and its own merits. It is clarified that the remand is only for the purpose of considering the claim for gratuity and not for any other claim, which, as such, are already rejected by the learned Single Judge. 8. With this, present Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Civil Application No. 959/2018 9. In view of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application stands disposed of.