Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 102 (GUJ)

Deepsinh G Rathod v. District Development Officer

2020-01-20

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. A senior citizen aged about 89 years is still awaiting for actual arrears of pay for the service rendered by him before his retirement. 2. The petitioner was serving as a Social Education Officer and he retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.07.1989. It appears that after his retirement, the petitioner was conferred the benefits of two higher pay-scales in pursuance to the government policy vide order dated 20.02.2002. Since the aforesaid order was not implemented and no benefits arising from the aforesaid order were granted, he was constrained to file the present writ petition claiming the actual arrears and interest. 3. Learned advocate Mr.Ankit Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to various orders passed by this Court, respondent authorities ultimately passed an order dated 04.09.2010 fixing the higher pay-scale of the petitioner and also making relevant entries in his service book. He has submitted that despite the aforesaid order till 2017, the petitioner was not granted the benefits and his pension payment order was also not finalized. Thus, he has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed conferring the benefit of interest on the amount of Rs.72,270/- to the petitioner. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Kuldeep K. Adesara appearing for the respondent no.1-District Development Officer has submitted that since there were various objections raised by the Local Fund Office, the time was consumed in satisfying the aforesaid objections. He has invited the attention of this Court to the various communications issued by the Local Fund Accounts to the Taluka Development Officer. He has submitted that the aforesaid objections were satisfied as and when the same were raised and hence, no liability of interest can be fastened on the respondent no.1. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Sahil Trivedi appearing for the respondent no.4-Local Fund has submitted that as soon as the authorities received the service book of the petitioner from the respondent no.1 authority, the amount of higher pay-scale was released. He has submitted that an amount of Rs.72,270/- was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner on 07.06.2017. Thus, he has submitted that looking to the dispute/objections, which were required to be satisfied, and after such satisfaction of the objections, the petitioner was ultimately paid the amount towards the higher pay-scale. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Thus, he has submitted that looking to the dispute/objections, which were required to be satisfied, and after such satisfaction of the objections, the petitioner was ultimately paid the amount towards the higher pay-scale. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 7. Since the issue is only confined to the payment of interest on the amount of Rs.72,720/-, this Court is examining the liability on whom the payment of aforesaid interest can be fastened. The petitioner retired in the year 1989 on reaching the age of superannuation. After he retired, the respondent-authority i.e. the District Development Officer, under whom the petitioner was serving, passed an order dated 20.02.2002 conferring the benefits of two higher pay-scale. The order dated 20.02.2002 reveals that the petitioner was conferred the benefit of 1st higher pay-scale of Rs.1640-2600 and the 2nd higher pay-scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 01.06.1987. Since the aforesaid order was not implemented, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. It appears that since the Local Fund Examiner raised various objections to the grant of the aforesaid higher pay-scale, the Local Fund Office was joined as respondent no.4 vide order dated 28.02.2013. From the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by this Court, it emerges that the service book of the petitioner was misplaced and time was taken to trace out the same. By the order dated 13.02.2017, this Court has recorded the statement of the learned AGP, by which a communication dated 08.02.2017 was placed, wherein it was stated by the District Treasury Office that the service book of the petitioner was returned to the concerned panchayat. Thereafter, the present writ petition was adjourned for few occasions on the aforesaid grounds. On 26.04.2017, this Court has recorded statement of learned AGP that the State Government has sanctioned the benefit of 3rd higher grade pay-scale to the petitioner with effect from 30.01.1989. Thereafter, on 04.05.2017, this Court had passed the following order: “1. The respondent-State Government, Panchayat and Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, vide its communication dated 25.4.2017 addressed to the District Development Officer, decided to give the benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioner with effect from 31.1.1989. Now, it is for the District Development Officer to give effect of higher grade scale by passing a formal order. The respondent-State Government, Panchayat and Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, vide its communication dated 25.4.2017 addressed to the District Development Officer, decided to give the benefit of higher grade scale to the petitioner with effect from 31.1.1989. Now, it is for the District Development Officer to give effect of higher grade scale by passing a formal order. The matter was kept for the purpose of producing a formal order passed by the District Development Officer on 2.5.2017, but on that day, learned advocate appearing for the District Panchayat has requested for two days' time to take the required steps. Accordingly, the matter is taken up today, but even today, the learned advocate appearing for the District Panchayat has requested for further time. 2. The petitioner is aged about 86 years, and his health condition is also not good, and he is waiting for his legitimate dues since long. Once the Government has given sanction, there is no reason for the District Panchayat to withhold the decision any further, which is formal in nature. Under the circumstances, the respondent District Panchayat is directed to pass necessary order latest by tomorrow, and place it before this Court through the learned advocate appearing in this case, failing which, the District Development Officer, Gandhinagar, shall remain personally present before this Court on the next date. List again on 5.5.2017. Direct service today is permitted.” Thereafter, on 05.05.2017, it was recorded that necessary entry was made in the service book of the petitioner and accordingly, the revision of pay were also calculated. 9. Ultimately, after the aforesaid exercise carried out by this Court, the petitioner is paid the arrears of the amount of higher pay-scale to the tune of Rs. Rs.72,720/- on 07.06.2017. A perusal of the record of the writ petition reveals that after the petitioner was conferred the benefit of the higher pay-scale vide order dated 20.02.2002, there were various objections raised by the Local Fund with regard to the fixation of the pay. The aforesaid objections were satisfied by the Taluka Development Officer, Gandhinagar. Ultimately, because of the orders passed by this Court, the Committee of four members comprising of Chitnish, District Panchayat, Gandhinagar, Account Officer, District Panchayat, Gandhinagar, Secretary i.e. Deputy District Development Officer and District Development Officer, Gandhinagar had passed an order dated 04.09.2010, wherein the petitioner was conferred the benefit of 1st higher pay-scale and 2nd higher pay-scale. Ultimately, because of the orders passed by this Court, the Committee of four members comprising of Chitnish, District Panchayat, Gandhinagar, Account Officer, District Panchayat, Gandhinagar, Secretary i.e. Deputy District Development Officer and District Development Officer, Gandhinagar had passed an order dated 04.09.2010, wherein the petitioner was conferred the benefit of 1st higher pay-scale and 2nd higher pay-scale. It appears that there were various issues, which are required to be answered and the objections, which are required to be rectified, such as exemption from passing Hindi and the departmental examination after reaching the age of 45 years taking the necessary undertakings from the petitioner as well as issuance of no due certificates. Such objections were considered by the committee and ultimately, the aforesaid higher pay-scales were sanctioned by the Committee. 10. Thus, the entitlement of the concerned higher pay-scale to the petitioner was finalized by the order dated 04.09.2010 passed by the Committee. Despite the aforesaid orders passed by the four members' Committee, the petitioner has been paid the amount after a period of 7 years. No satisfactory explanation is coming forth about the non-implementation of the order passed by the Committee, where each and every objections raised by the Local Fund has been taken care of. Thus, as regards the claim of interest prior to the period from 2010 is concerned, this Court acknowledges the delay in fixing the higher pay scale since the order of conferring the higher pay scale was passed in the year 2002 after the petitioner retired in the year 1989. Thus, various necessary entries were required to be made in the service book with regard to exemption from passing the departmental examination and also fixation of pay in his service book. The authorities were unable to track the service book of the petitioner as the higher pay-scale itself has been conferred after a period of around 13 years. 11. It appears that one application for claiming the higher pay-scale was made in the year 1994, however no steps were taken the petitioner in this regard and the authorities conferred the higher pay scale in the year 2002. Since the authorities were required to carry out necessary formalities with regard to removing of the aforesaid objections, the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest prior to 2010. Since the authorities were required to carry out necessary formalities with regard to removing of the aforesaid objections, the petitioner would not be entitled to any interest prior to 2010. However, after the year 2010, each and every objections were settled in view of the order of the Committee and hence, the respondents were required to pay the aforesaid amount immediately and it is only after the intervention of this Court , the amount has been paid in the year 2017. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the aforesaid amount of Rs.72,720/- from 01.01.2011 i.e after the order dated order dated 04.09.2010 by which the entire issue was settled by the Committee till 07.06.2017. The interest shall be deposited in the bank account of the petitioner within a period of 01 (one) month from the date of receipt of the writ of this judgment. It will be open for the State to recover the aforesaid amount from the erring officers, after holding a necessary inquiry. 13. The present writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.