JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner - Halal District Local Bodies Employees Union, Jamnagar has preferred present petition under Articles 14, 16, 19(i)(g), 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging inaction on the part of the respondents with below mentioned relief/s:- “7(A) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondent – corporation to forthwith deposit the amount of Rs.2.5 Crores in respective accounts of the employees in GPF/CPF which amount is of difference of pay revision with effect from 1.1.2006 to 31.3.2009 along with the bank interest till the date of deposit (B) That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent – State authorities to take appropriate astringent action against the erring officers of the respondent – corporation so as to see that non compliance of it which has incurred an interest loss may be appropriately recovered from the erring officer and report this Hon’ble Court be submitted about the steps being taken in this regard. (C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent – corporation to forthwith deposit the amount of Rs.2.5 Crores with interest in respective account of employees of the period 1.2.2006 to 31.3.2009 in GPF/CPF account subject to the outcome of the petition. (D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice” 2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner is Registered Trade Union having large number of members in the area and the employees of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation are the members of the Union. The respondent-State Government vide Government Resolution dated 12.2.2009 had implemented the Pay Revision as per the recommendation made by 6th Pay Commission and accordingly, the said resolution came to be published for the employees serving in the government as well as in various Panchayat as well as statutory bodies like Corporation. The said resolution has prescribed the method of pay revision and also the method how to pay with effect from 1.1.2006 by way of arrears to the employees serving in various authorities. The said resolution has prescribed the method of pay revision and also the method how to pay with effect from 1.1.2006 by way of arrears to the employees serving in various authorities. 2.1 The Standing Committee, pursuant to this pronouncement of pay revision as well as pension amendments to its employees i.e. serving in Jamnagar Municipal Corporation who are also members of the petitioner-Union and the Standing Committee vide resolution No.564 dated 18.6.2009 had decided to adopt and implement the pay revision prescribed by Government resolution on "scale to scale basis". The said resolution, thereupon came to be approved by the general board of Municipal Corporation, who also in turn adopted and implemented on scale to scale basis identically to that what has been prescribed by Government Resolution dated 12.2.009. The general board passed the resolution No.117 on 20.6.2009. Pursuant to standing committee resolution as well as approval by the General Board even respondent Commissioner of Municipal Corporation issued an order on 6.7.2009 whereby it was decided and ordered to prescribe "a pay band and grade pay" and also ordered to implement on scale to scale basis in consonance with the original Govt. Resolution dated 12.2.2009. 2.2 The Corporation was under an obligation in view of aforesaid to directly deposit first and other installments at the rate of 20% in the accounts of employees in GPF/CPF but surprisingly, this statutory body has not deposited the same though the Corporation is having sound financial structure. Therefore, a detailed request came to be made on 22.11.2011. Again the Corporation has not initiated any steps therefore, again on 13.12.2011 the request was made even by pointing out in detail resolutions of the Corporation as well as resolutions of the Government and in addition thereto the provisions of B.P.M.C. Act. Therefore, a detailed request came to be made on 22.11.2011. Again the Corporation has not initiated any steps therefore, again on 13.12.2011 the request was made even by pointing out in detail resolutions of the Corporation as well as resolutions of the Government and in addition thereto the provisions of B.P.M.C. Act. 2.3 Even despite these repeated requests, the respondent-Corporation has not initiated any action and therefore, a grievance was raised before the respondent- State authorities and in turn, the respondent Finance Department instructed the learned Secretary of Urban Development Department to take steps in context of request made by the Union so as to see that the amount can be deposited in GPF/CPF accounts of employees and the said letter was written to the respondent Secretary on 30.12.2011 2.4 In response to this request, an amount of Rs.2.5 crores of the first installments of 20% was required to be deposited in respective accounts in consonance with the decision taken by the authority, however it was not deposited therefore again the petitioner-Union made a request on 29.3.2012 to the learned Secretary reminding again and that request has not been adhered to by the respondent- Corporation and therefore representation was again made on 29.3.2012. 2.5 Even there is a circular issued by the government for taking such kind of steps but even that has not been adhered to, followed or implemented and just in an autocratic way till date such a huge amount to the extent of Rs.2.5 crores is yet not been deposited in respective accounts of the employees in GPF/CPF. The first and the second installment as well is not appearing to have been deposited so far; however third installment of 20% is paid in cash but ultimately the original amount of 2.5 crore is still not credited in respective accounts of the employees in GPF/CPF and persistent request and representations have also not yield any result. Therefore, the petitioner - Union approached this Court by way of present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Vishal B. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. 4. Mr. Therefore, the petitioner - Union approached this Court by way of present petition. 3. I have heard Mr. Vishal B. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 and Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3. 4. Mr. Vishal B. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action on the part of the respondent authority of not paying interest on the late payment to the petitioners is not only unjust and arbitrary but is violative of fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner-union. He has further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get interest on the delayed payment. 4.1 In view of the above, Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that present petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the time was consumed to complete the formalities and for calculating the amount in case of each of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the first installment of Rs.74,27,037/- was deposited on 8.8.2012 and second installment of Rs.1,35,33,626/- was deposited on 9.8.2012. He has further submitted that there was no any intention of delay on the part of the respondent corporation. He has further submitted that in view of the said fact, the first prayer of the petition is already exhausted and therefore, now the Court may not pass any order qua awarding interest on the said amount, since the respondent corporation is facing a difficulty and passing through the hardship therefore, the order of awarding any interest is caused further hardship to the respondent corporation. 5.1 In view of the above, Mr. Munshaw, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 urges before the Court that present petition may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed. 6. I have gone through relevant material available on record along and documents placed on record. The amount which is under dispute was already deposited by way of two different installments. It appears from the record that on 8.8.2012 the first installment of Rs.74,27,037/- was deposited and on 9.8.2012 the second installment is of Rs.1,35,33,626/- by the respondent corporation. 6. I have gone through relevant material available on record along and documents placed on record. The amount which is under dispute was already deposited by way of two different installments. It appears from the record that on 8.8.2012 the first installment of Rs.74,27,037/- was deposited and on 9.8.2012 the second installment is of Rs.1,35,33,626/- by the respondent corporation. Therefore, so far as the grievance raised in present petition qua revision of pay is concerned, the same is already received by the petitioners and therefore, the cause for the same is not survived. 7. Now, the petition is remained only for the purpose of interest. The amount which is deposited by the corporation is at belated stage. The respondents have completed the formalities in the month of October 2010, the amount was deposited in the account of all the concerned petitioners after month of August 2012, almost 23 months have been passed in completing all these formalities. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Selvaraj Vs. C.B.M. College reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627 , I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% till the date of depositing both the installments. 9. In the case of A. Selvaraj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para-5 as under:- “5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, present Appeal Succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court and that of the learned Single Judge denying the interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside. The Management / Trustees/College are hereby directed to pay the interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits to the Appellant, from the date of retirement till the actual payment was made, subject to the final decision that may be taken by the Government on the objections to the enquiry report that may be filed by the former Secretary and/or the College and it will be open for the College/Management/Trustees to recover the same from the person, who, ultimately is held to be responsible for the delay. The payment of interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to be paid strictly within a period of six weeks from today. The payment of interest on delayed payment of retirement benefits to be paid strictly within a period of six weeks from today. In the meantime, the Government to pass a final order on the enquiry report after giving an opportunity to the College/Management/former Secretary. It goes without saying that it would be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the said decision before the appropriate forum. Present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 10. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam reported in 2014 (8) SCC 849 has observed as under:- "5. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in hand. 6. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed." 11. In view of the above decisions and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get interest @ 6% till the date of depositing both the installments. 12. Hence, respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to deposit the interest @ 6% from October 2010 to August 2012 in the accounts of the petitioners. 13. The said formalities shall be completed within period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of present order. 14. The amount of interest to the employees, who have already retired from service be paid directly in their bank account, after verifying the bank details by the corporation and after following due procedure. 15. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed. 14. The amount of interest to the employees, who have already retired from service be paid directly in their bank account, after verifying the bank details by the corporation and after following due procedure. 15. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.