JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Denish Morakhia, learned advocate for Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.1- University and Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 2. By way of the present petition, petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Service Tribunal in Application No. 1 of 2014 (new Application No. 1944 of 2014), whereby, petitioner’s application before the Tribunal, which is duly produced at Annexure-A, Pg. 19 seeking the prayers as prayed for the interest accrued on the delayed payment of the retiral dues to the tune of Rs.6,22,914/- alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs. On 24.01.2014, by filing the said application, the petitioner in para-4 to 6 stated the following, which read thus: “(4) I, the applicant, state that after my voluntary retirement on 30/04/2011, the Respondent No.1 University sent the pension case of the applicant to the Respondent No.2, the Commissioner of Higher Education for approval vide its letter dated 14/06/11. The copy of the said letter is produced herewith as Enclosure – 5. In connection with the said letter, it was informed by the Respondent No.2, the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education vide its letter dated 21/07/11 to the Respondent No.1, the University that, the selection grade of Rs.14940/- and the R.O.P-09 of the applicant have not been verified by the competent authority and therefore, the case should be submitted again after removing the said two objections, and the pension case was sent back. The copy of the letter dated 21/07/11 of the Respondent No.2 is produced herewith as Enclosure – 6. After the objection was raised by the Respondent No.2 with respect to the pension case of the applicant, the University took the time of one year, ten months and five days to remove the said objection, which is too long. The applicant received the selection grade of Rs.14,940/- on 04/07/99. Therefore, it was the responsibility of the Respondent No.1, the Bhavnagar University, to get it verified by the competent authority at the respective time. The said verification was not done by the University at the respective time and therefore, the objection was raised in the pension case of the applicant. (5) The applicant had done the Ph.D in the year 1999. The said verification was not done by the University at the respective time and therefore, the objection was raised in the pension case of the applicant. (5) The applicant had done the Ph.D in the year 1999. Therefore, two increments were given to him as per the rules prevalent at that time. An entry in this regard was made in the applicant’s service book by the Registrar of the University. The Respondent No.2 had also made an entry in this regard in the applicant’s service book. The applicant was given the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission by the University. The applicant states that, after the fixation of pay as per the Sixth Pay Commission, it was necessary for the Respondent No.1 University to affix a sticker in the service book after getting the said new pay scale verified. In this regard, a circular dated 27/07/2010 was issued by the Finance Department. In connection with the same, though it was necessary for the University to get the pay fixation verified online or by the Local Fund Accounts, the Respondent No.1, University did not carry out the said procedure. And in the case of the applicant, no such procedure was carried out till the applicant voluntarily retired on 30/04/11. Due to this fact, the objection was raised in the pension case of the applicant, which caused a delay in the payment of retirement benefits and regular pension benefits to the applicant. The applicant states that the said delay has been caused only because of the Respondent No.1, University and Respondent No.2, the Commissioner of High Education. The orders regarding the fixation of pay were made by the Accounts Officer, Pay Verification Unit, Local Fund on 28/12/2012 after the correspondence by the applicant. The copy of the said order dated 28/12/12 regarding fixation of pay is produced herewith as Enclosure – 7. The applicant states that, as per the aforesaid fact, after the retirement of the applicant on 30/04/11, the fixation of pay as per the Sixth Pay Commission was approved after around one year and eight months. During this period, the applicant made representations before the University, the C.H.E., the Collector from time to time that the pension was not being paid to the applicant. During this period, the applicant made representations before the University, the C.H.E., the Collector from time to time that the pension was not being paid to the applicant. (6) The applicant submits that, after completion of the aforesaid procedure, the amount of pension, gratuity and capitalized commutation was deposited in the account of the applicant on 06/03/2013. It shows that the aforesaid retirement benefits admissible to the applicant were received after the period of one year and eleven months. Therefore, the applicant wrote a letter dated 15/04/2013 to the Respondent No.1 and 2 informing them to pay within one month Rs.6,22,914/- as the interest for the delayed payment of the amount of retirement benefits admissible to the applicant. Further, it was also stated in the said letter that if the interest amount will not be paid within one month, the compounding interest should be paid on the said interest amount. The applicant had also sent a table of calculation of interest along with the said letter. The copy of the said letter has also been forwarded by the applicant to the Respondent No.4. The copy of the said letter has been produced herewith as Enclosure – 8. The Respondent No.4, the Office of Pension and Provident Fund gave the reply of the said letter of Enclosure – 8 vide its letter dated 29/04/2013. It was stated therein that, when the concerned office prepares the bill and produces the same to its office after the orders regarding the interest upon the delayed payment are passed by the concerned administrative department, its office is required to make countersign only. Therefore, the applicant was informed to submit the application in this regard to the concerned office. The copy of the said letter is produced herewith as Enclosure – 9.” 3. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, rejected the petitioner’s application seeking interest and held the following, which read thus: “xxx (6) The delay caused to the applicant in receiving the pension, gratuity and advance pension after receiving approval for voluntary retirement is considered to be of about 1 year and 10 months by the applicant and he has claimed for a penal interest which is in fact not the delay related to sanctioning of pension, gratuity etc. but total five selection grade and advance increment were sanctioned to the applicant in 1999 and verification of the same has not been done at the relevant time. Moreover, the verification of new pay revision to the applicant under R.O.P.-09 was pending at the relevant time. The same has been completed now. Therefore, the delay caused is not related to the sanctioning of pension but, the delay is due to the pending verification of pay revision and selection grade at the relevant time which could have been avoided if the applicant would have remained vigilant and would have obtained orders by making representation or he could have raised objection against this delay at the relevant time and he could have taken necessary action. Therefore, at present, it is not appropriate to raise objection against the procedural delay caused at the relevant time at the level of the applicant. He should have raised the objection at the relevant time, because he had received the benefits at the concerned time which were subjected to the verification but the verification was not done. Moreover, generally, in the case of superannuation the date of retirement is known before hand. The procedure of pension starts before 24 months and is completed on the day of the retirement. As this is a case of voluntary retirement, as there was no prior knowledge and as the procedure of the pension was carried out after the approval of the retirement, this delay was caused. The applicant has not established any intentional negligence or malafide intention of anyone for causing this delay. In these circumstances, we do not believe the penal interest is required to be charged. Because, there is no such legal provision nor there is any instructions regarding the policy of the Government. But, in the case of delay that can not be condoned or intentional delay, it is established in the judgments of this Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court that penal interest is admissible. This does not appear to be such case of intentional delay. Therefore, it appears to us that the claim of the applicant is liable to be rejected. But, in the case of delay that can not be condoned or intentional delay, it is established in the judgments of this Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court that penal interest is admissible. This does not appear to be such case of intentional delay. Therefore, it appears to us that the claim of the applicant is liable to be rejected. (7) Now, if we see the two judgments produced by the applicant, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court produced by the applicant is the case of superannuation and not of voluntary retirement and it is clearly mention therein that, it involves matter of intentional delay at Treasury level. Whereas, no such intentional delay is established in the case before us. Therefore, the benefit of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be given to the applicant. Moreover, the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court produced by the applicant involves matter of delayed payment of salary and spending the G.P.F. some where else and delayed and less payment of salary by a Municipality, which was very serious matter. In the present case, the applicant has received his benefits but, the applicant has claimed for the interest for the delay. In this manner, that case is not similar and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of that judgment. Thus, both the judgments produced by the applicant are not applicable in his case and therefore, order is passed as under: - ORDER - (8) The application of the applicant is hereby dismissed. (9) No order as to the cost. Copy of this order is to be sent to the parties free of cost by R.P.A.D. immediately and if the Advocate of the parties requests for the copy in writing, then the same is to be supplied upon payment of the fee as per the rules. This judgment is pronounced today on 8th December, 2016 in the open Court.” 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, the petitioner herein has approached this Court and has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow this petition by issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by Ld. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016, the petitioner herein has approached this Court and has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordship be pleased to admit and allow this petition by issuing the writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and quash and set aside the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by Ld. Gujarat Educational Institutions Service Tribunal in Application No.01 of 2014 [New Application No.1944/2014] of rejecting the application at Annexure-A. (B) YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to allow the aforesaid application and award the interest on the delayed payment as prayed for in the said Application No.01 of 2004 (New No.1944/2014) mentioned in para-9(A) of the said Application at Annexure-A and interest on the said amount till its actual realization along with cost of the said Application and this Writ Petition. (C) Your Lordship be pleased to award the appropriate cost of this petition and litigation expenses, as due to carelessness on part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has to bear the same. (D) Your Lordship be pleased to grant any other or further relief as may be deemed fit in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 5. The undisputed facts that emerge reads thus: 5.1. The petitioner herein came to be appointed as Lecturer at respondent no.1 – University on 05.09.1986, and joined the duty on 29.09.1986. The petitioner was earlier serving as a Lecturer at Vyara College from 04.07.1978 to 28.09.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was subsequently designated as Associate Professor. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 14.12.2010. Upon due verification of the pensionable service, petitioner was permitted to retire on 30.04.2011, after the office hours. On 14.06.2011, the respondent no.1 – University wrote a letter to the respondent no.2 to approve the pension case of the petitioner herein. As against the said communication, the respondent no.4 had raised two objections by communication dated 14.07.2011, viz. (I) verification of basic pay, i.e. 14,940/- of the petitioner and (II) R.O.P. 09 verification is yet to be done by the respondent authority. In turn, the respondent no.2 sent the same to the respondent No.1 University on 21.07.2011. 5.2. The petitioner made number of representations and wrote number of letters to both the authorities to fix the pension of the petitioner, since nothing was moving ahead the petitioner’s voluntary retirement. In turn, the respondent no.2 sent the same to the respondent No.1 University on 21.07.2011. 5.2. The petitioner made number of representations and wrote number of letters to both the authorities to fix the pension of the petitioner, since nothing was moving ahead the petitioner’s voluntary retirement. The petitioner’s pension was fixed after the delay of 22 months. After much persuasion, petitioner’s pay verification was approved on 28.12.2012 and ultimately by letter dated 16.02.2013 from the respondent no.4, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's pension was approved. Finally, on 06.03.2013, the amount of pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits were deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. 5.3. The petitioner wrote letter to the respondents that the petitioner has received his pension almost after a delay of 22 months and that the said delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner herein, as it was caused due to non-compliance of formal requirements on the part of the respondent – authorities, and the petitioner is entitled for the interest on delayed payment. The amount of the interest calculated by the petitioner comes to around Rs.6,22,914/-. The letter alongwith the calculation-sheet is duly produced at Annexure-H. 5.4. It is the case of the petitioner that, in response to the aforesaid letter, the Accounts Officer of the respondent no.4 shirked from his responsibility, by reply dated 29.04.2013 that their duty is to only counter sign, when concerned office sends the bill and in view thereof, the petitioner shall apply to the concerned office. The petitioner therefore, on 17.06.2013, wrote a letter to the respondent – University, demanding the interest for the delayed payment. The respondent – University replied to the same and stated that as the amount is sanctioned after necessary administrative procedure and so therefore, nothing further is required to be done. 5.5. It is the case of the petitioner that the government resolution dated 20.12.2002, which is duly produced at Annexure-L, provides for awarding interest @ 9% and that the erring officers are responsible for the delay. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal, seeking interest on the delayed payment, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016. 5.6. In light of the aforesaid, petitioner herein has constrained to approach this Court, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal with the reliefs as stated herein-above. 6.1. Mr. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal, seeking interest on the delayed payment, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 08.12.2016. 5.6. In light of the aforesaid, petitioner herein has constrained to approach this Court, challenging the order passed by the Tribunal with the reliefs as stated herein-above. 6.1. Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the case of the petitioner for grant of interest, on delayed payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 6.2. It is submitted that, it is not in dispute that, there is a delay of 22 months in extending the retiral benefits to the petitioner. It is submitted that the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner and the respondent authorities are responsible for the same. It is submitted that the petitioner herein applied for voluntary retirement on 14.12.2010 (Annexure-B), which came to be accepted on 30.04.2011 by the respondent- University, after due verification. The said application was allowed, after due verification of the petitioner’s pensionable service from the government and petitioner was allowed to retire on 30.04.2011 after the office hours. 6.3. It is submitted that the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities to fix the petitioner’s pension, however, the same was not considered by the competent authorities, in view of the internal communications that were going-on between the respondent authorities. It is reiterated that, the petitioner in view of above, is governed by the government resolution dated 20.12.2002, duly produced at Annexure-L (Pg. 41). Placing reliance is placed on Clause-5 of the said resolution (Pg. 43), it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be interfered with, mainly on the ground that, while rejecting the petitioner’s application, the Tribunal has erroneously held that the petitioner was responsible for the delay and that the petitioner was required to undertake the exercise earlier, and in view thereof, the delay is held not to be attributable to the respondent authorities. 7.1. Ms. 7.1. Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State submits that the respondent – state authorities upon receipt of the communication from the respondent no.1 – University, on 14.06.2011, immediately by communication dated 14.07.2011, asked for further details from the respondent no.1 and because of the delay occurred at the end of the respondent no.1 – University in complying the details that were sought for by the respondent – State from the respondent no.1- University, in view of the aforesaid, the delay has occurred, however, the same cannot be attributed to the respondent – State. 7.2. Reliance is placed on communication dated 16.02.2013, page-34, placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that, upon receipt of the details from the respondent no.1, the pensionary benefits are extended within a period of three months and the amount has also been deposited in the account of the petitioner on 06.03.2013. It is submitted that, it is erroneous to attribute the delay to respondent- State, as the respondent no.1 had not supplied the requisite details/ information as sought for. 7.3. Ms. Ashar, learned AGP submits that, upon receipt of the application seeking voluntary retirement by the petitioner, the respondent no.1 – University informed the respondent – State on 14.06.2021 to approve the petitioner’s pension. It is submitted that, further information was called for, by the respondent – State, which was accordingly sent and two objections were raised by the respondent – State on 14.07.2011, which was sent by the respondent No.1 – University to the respondent – State, on 16.02.2013. It was submitted that the delay, if any, is an administrative delay, which cannot be attributed to the respondent No.3- State. 8.1. Mr. Kashyap R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterates the contentions raised earlier and submitted that, both the respondents are not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioner has been vigilant and applied for voluntary retirement from service as back as on 14.12.2010, which came to be accepted on 30.04.2011 and the petitioner has been vigilantly communicating both the authorities for grant of pension. In view thereof, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. 9.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the facts as referred above, are not in dispute. In view thereof, the case of the petitioner is required to be considered for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits. 9.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the facts as referred above, are not in dispute. It emerges that the petitioner applied for VRS on 14.12.2010, which came to be accepted by the respondent – University on 30.04.2011. Subsequently, there are various communications between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2, which reads thus: (I) On 14.06.2011, the respondent no.1- University had written a letter to the respondent no.2 for the approval of his pension case (Annexure-D). (II) On 14.07.2011, the respondent no.4 had raised two objections. The respondent no.2 in turn sent the same to the respondent no.1 – University by letter dated 21.07.2011 (Annexure -E). (III) On 28.12.2012 pay verification was approved and ultimately by letter dated 16.02.2013 from the respondent no.4, the petitioner was informed that his pension case been approved (Annexure-F). (IV) On 06.03.2013, the amount of pension, gratuity and other monetary benefits had been deposited in the bank account of the petitioner (Annexure-G). 9.2. Considering the order passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the aforesaid and attributed the delay to the petitioner. It also emerges that, it is also not in dispute that there is a delay of 22 months in giving the benefits of retirement to the petitioner. 9.3. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the government resolution dated 20.12.2002, duly produced at Annexure-L, Pg. 41, wherein, Clause-5, provided as under: “5. Retirement cases other than superannuation and cases of death during continuous service. (a) In cases other than superannuation i.e. voluntary retirement or in other cases or in cases of death during continuous service, the gratuity amount shall be paid within six months from the date of retirement or date of death. In case of delay, interest will have to be paid at stipulated rate for the period after completion of six months. But if in any case where the gratuity has been withheld due to more than one claimant of gratuity, interest shall not be payable on the amount withheld but if the amount is not paid within three months after the order of payment thereof, then interest shall be payable for the delayed period. But if in any case where the gratuity has been withheld due to more than one claimant of gratuity, interest shall not be payable on the amount withheld but if the amount is not paid within three months after the order of payment thereof, then interest shall be payable for the delayed period. (b) Interest shall not be payable on payment of difference amount due to revision of pay after payment of gratuity on account of payment of gratuity retrospectively from back date. But if the difference amount of gratuity is not paid within three months after the order of such payment, the interest has to be paid at stipulated rate for the period above three months.” 9.4. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is governed by Clause-5 of the said resolution. 10. In light of the aforesaid, the respondent authorities are directed to act in accordance with Clause-5 of the said government resolution dated 20.12.2002, as referred herein-above and accord the interest @ 6% to the petitioner, with respect to the amount of gratuity only. 11. For the foregoing reason and discussion, this is a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, and thereby the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Gujarat Educational Institutions Service Tribunal in Application No. 1 of 2014 (new Application No. 1944 of 2014) (Annexure-A) is interfered with, to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, the present Petition stands allowed in part, to the aforesaid extent. 12. Further, Rs.5,000/- that was deposited by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 25.04.2017, at the time of issuance of notice, is to be refunded and the registry is directed to refund the same to the petitioner, after due verification, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the copy of the order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.