JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chinmay Gandhi for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel for the respondent No. 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent-State through video conference. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent-State. 3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed as under: “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit under the government notification dated 26.03.2013 and the respondent State Government be directed to forthwith make the payment of Rs. 9,90,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum to the petitioner forthwith. (B) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the undisputed amount of difference pay of Rs. 9,90,000/-. (C) Such other and further orders as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and expedient be passed in favour of the petitioner. (D) Costs of this petition may be awarded to the petitioner.” 4. The brief facts are as under: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who is retired Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, was reemployed as President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ahmedabad on fixed salary basis, and thereafter, as Member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on fixed salary basis plus pension benefits. The Government of Gujarat issued a notification dated 26.03.2013 according to which instead of fixed pay payable to the members of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Commission, full pay less pension was decided to be paid and accordingly amendment was also made in the Consumer Protection Act on 22.12.2015. The petitioner was appointed in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as a judicial member and rendered his services from 16.01.2012 to 30.01.2015. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the full pay less pension pursuant to the aforesaid notification and amendment in the Act. The petitioner was appointed in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as a judicial member and rendered his services from 16.01.2012 to 30.01.2015. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the full pay less pension pursuant to the aforesaid notification and amendment in the Act. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation before the State Government in the year 2016 to pay the difference of full pay less pension to the petitioner, pursuant to the notification dated 26.03.2013. The petitioner also submitted that under the Gujarat Subordinate Judiciary Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, the pay fixation of the petitioner was also done at the time of retirement, as he retired from judicial service on 31.03.2008 and the pay of petitioner was fixed at Rs. 61,870. According to the petitioner, amount of approximately Rs. 15,000/- was payable to him for about 66 months. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of arrears pursuant to the notification dated 26.03.2013, which was not paid to the petitioner, hence, petitioner has approached before this Court. 5. This Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Chhaya) has passed the following order on 02.05.2018: “Considering the prayers prayed for in this petition, this Court (Coram: N.V. Anjaria, J.) has passed the following order on 11.12.2017: “Affidavit-in-Reply shall be filed before the next date. Stand over to 10th January, 2018.” 2. As the said order was not complied with, at the request of Dr. Venugopal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, again the matter was adjourned to 14.03.2018. Even that order was not complied with and therefore, on 02.04.2018, this Court passed the following order: “The respondent No. 1 to file its reply by the next date of hearing. S.O to 02.05.2017.” 3. One month time was granted to file Affidavit-in-Reply. However today, it is pointed out by learned AGP that the papers are not available with him. 4. Secretary, Legal Department, in opinion of this Court, is unaware about the earlier orders passed by this Court because of lack of communication or any other reason. Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has objection to grant further time. 5. However today, it is pointed out by learned AGP that the papers are not available with him. 4. Secretary, Legal Department, in opinion of this Court, is unaware about the earlier orders passed by this Court because of lack of communication or any other reason. Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has objection to grant further time. 5. However, as a last chance and in the interest of justice, spite of objection taken by learned counsel for the petitioner, Secretary, Legal Department is hereby directed to file Affidavit-in-Reply by the next date of hearing, failing which, he shall remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing to assist the Court. 6. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to communicate this order directly to Secretary, Legal Department, Gujarat State. S.O to 13th June, 2018.” 6. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, an amount of Rs. 13,05,938/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs five thousands nine hundred thirty eight) was calculated by the respondent-State and after deducting Rs. 2,63,600/- for tax, net amount of Rs. 10,42,338/- was paid to the petitioner on 29th August 2018. 7. In view of the above facts, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioner has now restricted the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the award of interest on the late payment by the respondent-State and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to 10% interest per annum as prayed by him in the petition on the amount of Rs. 13,05,938/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs five thousands nine hundred thirty eight) from 06.03.2013 till 29.08.2018. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has relied on following decisions: (1) State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh, 2016 AIR (0) 5239 (SC) (2) Kanaiyalal Atmaram Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 (1) GLH 475 (3) Ramanbhai Balchand Parmar vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 (0) AIJEL (HC) 236809 Relying on the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Gandhi that there was a delay in payment of arrears to the petitioner, which was not on account of his fault and such arrears was not paid in reasonable time, and therefore, petitioner is required to be compensated by awarding appropriate interest. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gandhi that there was a delay in payment of arrears to the petitioner, which was not on account of his fault and such arrears was not paid in reasonable time, and therefore, petitioner is required to be compensated by awarding appropriate interest. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondent-State submitted that amount of arrears could not be paid to the petitioner due to administrative exigencies, and therefore, no interest should be awarded to the petitioner as there is no error as per the respondent for which the petitioner was entitled to interest. 9. Learned advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel for the respondent No. 2 submits that it is not in dispute that there is a delay in payment of the arrears of amount to the petitioner and the same was paid after the petitioner has approached to this Court, and therefore, the award of interest, if any, is left to the discretion of the Court. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is a sorry state of affairs that member of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has to approach this Court for arrears of the salary to which, petitioner is entitled pursuant to the Government Notification dated 26.03.2013 and no arrears was paid in spite of the fact that petitioner submitted the representation to the respondent-State. 11. It also emerges from the petition that the other members, who were appointed on fixed pay less pension were granted arrears of the difference in pay with full pay less pension fixed pay on the basis of representation but the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent-State and as such petitioner was compelled to approach this Court to get the outstanding dues pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government. It is also pertinent to note that the arrears of the outstanding dues of the petitioner was paid only after this Court passed an order on 02.05.2018 directing the Secretary, Legal Department to remain present before the Court for not filing the affidavit in time. 12. In such circumstances when there is a delay in payment to the petitioner which is not in dispute, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the arrears of the outstanding dues paid to the petitioner on 29.08.2018. 12. In such circumstances when there is a delay in payment to the petitioner which is not in dispute, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on the arrears of the outstanding dues paid to the petitioner on 29.08.2018. Excuses/explanation given on behalf of the respondent-State that there were administrative exigencies for not paying the outstanding dues to the petitioner is not acceptable and as such, I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to at least 6 % interest per annum on the unpaid amount of arrears pursuant to the Government Notification dated 26.03.2013 from March 2013 to August 2018. 13. Therefore, the respondent-State is directed to pay such amount of interest to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, there shall be further cost of Rs. 1,000/- per day to be paid by the concerned Officer. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.