Gujarat High Court
Patel Ashwinbhai Somabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 29 January, 2019
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13643 of 2018
==========================================================
PATEL ASHWINBHAI SOMABHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL N VAKIL(3556) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KM ANTANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for RESPONDENT No. 1,4,5
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
Date : 29/01/2019
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhaval Vakil for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M.Antani for respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5 and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondents Nos.2 and 3.
2. By filing this petition, the petitioner claims interest alleging that there was a delayed payment of retirement benefits and pension to him.
3. The petitioner joined services in Kheda District Panchayat as Laboratory Technician on 18.03.1986. The petitioner was transferred to Anand District Panchayat in the year 1993. After having worked at different places and lastly at Anand as above, the Page 1 of 6 C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER petitioner opted on 31.07.2017 for voluntary retirement after completion of thirtyfive years of service. The authorities granted permission to the petitioner to voluntarily retire on 28.09.2017. 3.1 According to the case of the petitioner, though he was relieved from service on 30.09.2017, his pensionary benefits and other retirement benefits including gratuity and leave encashment were not immediately paid. The petitioner made a written representation dated 19.04.2018 to the District Development Officer, Anand. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the retirement dues were received by the petitioner after almost one year after acceptance of voluntary retirement. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on resolution of the Finance Department of the State Government dated 02.02.2018 wherein it is contemplated that the delayed payment of gratuity would attract interest. He further relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER Jharkhand and others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another [(2013) 12 SCC 210], wherein it was held that a person cannot be deprived of pension without authority of law. It was further held that attempt on the part of the State to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instructions cannot be countenanced. 4.1 The petition was contested by filing affidavit inreply on behalf of the respondent - District Panchayat. Learned advocates for the respondents relied on the contentions of the said affidavitinreply.
5. It emerges from the pleadings and the facts on record that the case of the petitioner is about gross delay in payment of retiral benefits to him and that he prays for payment of interest. The petitioner as stated above, opted for voluntary retirement at the age of fiftysix years. The application of the petitioner dated 31.7.2017 was accepted on 28.09.2017 and the petitioner was allowed to retire with effect from 30.09.2017.
Page 3 of 6 C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER 5.1 As far as the payment of different arrears of retirement dues are concerned, the facts are undisputed that amount of Rs.12,17,987/ towards Provident Fund was released to the petitioner on 12.06.2018, which amount was paid with interest till the date of payment. In respect of the leave encashment benefit, the bill was passed on 23.04.2018 and the amount was transferred in the account of Taluka Health Officer, Aanklav, immediately for the purpose of paying to the petitioner. The petitioner was paid Rs.5,87,729/ towards leave encashment. Furthermore, Group Insurance amount of Rs.1,60,936/ was paid to the petitioner on 12.04.2018. Thus, the above amounts under different heads towards retirement dues of the petitioner were processed and paid after following the due procedure. It is not possible to figure out any deliberate delay on the part of the authorities in processing and making all these payments.
5.2 As far as the payments of pension and gratuity to the petitioner were concerned, they were paid as per the provisions of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002. Pension papers were prepared by the Taluka Health Officer, Aanklav, where the Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER petitioner had been last serving. The petitioner was allowed to retire with effect from 30.09.2017 and the pension papers were sent to the respondent authority on 08.12.2017 for verification, that is within the span of less than three months. The same were forwarded on 13.03.2018 to Taluka Health Officer, Aanklav for compliance and thereafter immediately forwarded to the Accounts Branch of the District Panchayat on 20.03.2018. As the queries were raised by the Accounts Branch on 15.05.2018, the papers were returned which were again forwarded to respondent No.3 after necessary compliance on 25.05.2018. The Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Gandhinagar, finally sanctioned the pension papers on 08.08.2018. The petitioner was paid amount of Rs.10,00,000/ towards gratuity and Rs.5,82,834/ towards commuted pension by the District Treasury, Anand, which action was preceded by the procedure to satisfy the queries of the Pension and Provident Fund office. 5.3 The steps indicated above reflect that there were the necessary steps in the procedure for processing of the payments. The gratuity and pension was paid within one year after the petitioner was Page 5 of 6 C/SCA/13643/2018 ORDER retired with effect from 30.09.2017. The processing indicated by the respondent culminating to different payments as above would not be said to be tainted with any negligence or deliberate lethargy or intentional whiling away of time on part of the authorities. The aspect is also noteworthy that it was not a case of regular superannuation, but the petitioner had opted voluntary retirement which request was considered and granted. After the petitioner was permitted to voluntary retire, process for payment of retiral dues to him including the pension and gratuity was commenced.
6. In view of above details and events discussed and mentioned and when any element of negligence much less gross negligence or intentional delay on part of the authorities could be in no way established, the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest is not tenable either on facts or in law.
7. The petition stands meritless and is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J) Gaurav+ Page 6 of 6