Gujarat High Court
Babulal Jadavbhai Dholaria vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 23 March, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9514 of 2013
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 10/02/2016 in
C/SCA/9514/2013 ]
==========================================================
BABULAL JADAVBHAI DHOLARIA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 23/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
By this Note for Speaking to Minute, it has been pointed out that there is an error in para 31 of the order dated 10th February, 2016 so far as the period for which the interest was prayed for towards the delayed payment of pension. In para - 31, it has been observed that the respondent No.2 is directed to make the necessary payment towards interest at the rate of 10% towards the delayed payment of pension for the period between 1960 and 1979. The correct period should be between 1960 and 1999.
The Registry shall effect the necessary correction and issue a fresh writ of the order.
The Note is accordingly disposed of.
Page 1 of 2HC-NIC Page 1 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 1 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 2 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9514 of 2013 ========================================================== BABULAL JADAVBHAI DHOLARIA....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3 MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 10/02/2016 ORAL ORDER
1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired Government Employee, aged about 76 years, has prayed for the following reliefs;
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government to comply with the order dtd. 12.9.2007 to 13.9.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat University Services Tribunal in Application No.43/2001 and pay all the dues with interest and cost;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction passing appropriate orders against the Government officials who have conveniently and deliberately not complied with the order dtd. 12.9.2007 to 13.9.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat University Services Tribunal in Application No.43/2001.Page 1 of 18
HC-NIC Page 3 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 3 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER (C ) Be pleased to pass to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order directing the Government to pass appropriate notification to make the Gujarat University Services Tribunal independent in the light of the decision reported in 2010 (110 SCC page-1).
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Government to comply with the order dtd. 12.9.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat University Services Tribunal in Application No.43/2001.
(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further relief as may be deemed fit by your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed in a Government Primary School as the "Assistant Teacher" at Nani Vavdi, Taluka: Kalavad, District: Jamnagar. He worked at the said school for the period between 27.10.1960 and 18.7.1969. Thereafter, he came to be posted as the "Head Teacher" in the Sanala Primary School and worked for the period between 25.7.1969 and 6.7.1970. He came to be selected thereafter as an Assistant Teacher in the Virani High School (Primary Section). He worked at the Virani High School for the period between 7.7.1970 and 6.12.1979. It is his case that an advertisement was issued by the Saurashtra University for appointment on the various posts in the different departments including that of the post of "Project Officer". Pursuant to the same, the petitioner applied. He was interviewed and was appointed as the Project Officer vide appointment letter dated 23rd November, 1979 in the pay scale of Rs.700-1300.
3. On 1.11.1991, the petitioner was assigned with the charge of the post of "Director" of a Center run and managed by the University.
Page 2 of 18HC-NIC Page 4 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 4 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER
4. On 5.1.1996, an advertisement was issued by the Saurashtra University for filing up the post of "Director" of the Adult Continuing Education and Extension Center. He applied for the said post and was appointed vide appointment order dated 11.12.1996. The petitioner continued in service till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.3.1999. After attaining superannuation, the issue of pension was raised by the petitioner. It appears that he had to approach the Gujarat University Services Tribunal at Ahmedabad with the Application No.43 of 2001 in that regard. The Tribunal passed the following order, which reads as under;
"In the result, present petition is hereby allowed. It is declared that petitioner is entitled to have the pension for the service rendered by him right from 1960 to 1999 (supra). Opponent No.1 University is hereby directed to prepare the pension papers and send the same to the office of Commissioner of Higher Education, being Opponent No.4, within period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of free copy of this judgment at the end of University, from the office of this Tribunal or on service of photo copy of free copy of this judgment, duly secured by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.
Opponent No.4- Commissioner of Higher Education is hereby directed to verify the same and counter sign, for the purpose of pension and to send the same to Opponent No.5- Director of Pension & Provident Fund for necessary procedure to issue pension order, within period of one month from the date of receipt of the pension papers from Opponent No.1 University.
Opponent No.5 is hereby directed to issue the pension order to the petitioner within period of one month from the date of receipt of relevant papers at its end from the office of Commissioner of Higher Education.
As during the course of final hearing, it is not pressed for the petitioner and considering the facts and Page 3 of 18 HC-NIC Page 5 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 5 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER circumstances of the case and considering further that whether an employee of the Center like Project Officer, Assistant Director and Director are eligible to have the pension or not, is being finally concluded (so far as State of Gujarat is concerned) by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, recently vide Oral Judgment dated 7/2/2007, delivered in the case of Mr. Lakhtariya, prayer of the petitioner made to have 18% interest on the arrear of difference of pension, is hereby rejected with further order and direction that petitioner being senior citizen, will be entitled to have simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the arrear of the pension to be paid to him, if the same is not paid to him within aforesaid stipulated time period.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order qua cost of this petition."
5. Since the order of the Tribunal was not complied with, the applicant herein had to initiate execution proceedings before the Tribunal. In the Execution Application No.5 of 2008, the Tribunal passed the following order;
"10. It appears that copy of this order was sent by Registry of this Tribunal by RPAD to the Office of Secretary shri, Education Department and Commissioner of Higher Education. In view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (I) (2010) 9 SCC 157 = AIR 2010 SC 3817, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs. Manju Jain and (2) (2011) 5 SCC 142 (Para
23) Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. And ors. vs. Ananta Saha and ors. when post is sent by RPAD it is required to be presumed that the same is received.
Heere in this case Registry sent two RPAD, out of which one is received and evidence of receipt is also received on the record of the case, so I have no hesitation to presume that another RPAD sent to Secretary Shri, Education Department must have been received.
11. It appears that inspite of aforesaid order dated 24.12.2012 and specific direction vide sub-para of Para 3 (supra), no responsible officer of the Education Department and of Office of Commissioner of Higher Page 4 of 18 HC-NIC Page 6 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 6 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER Education has turned up to make this Tribunal aware about the stage in the case.
12. Ld. Ad. Ms. Mamta Vyas submitted forcefully to pass effective orders to see that this execution application is disposed and fruits of the judgment under execution may reach to the applicant after more than 12 years of his retirement and more than 5 years from the date of judgment.
13. It appears that without presence and cooperation of the responsible officer of Education Department and Office of Commissioner of Higher Education, it is not possible for this Tribunal to proceed further in this Execution Application, to have the judgment under execution executed.
As no one has turned up from the Education Department and Office of Commissioner of Higher Education, it is not possible for this Tribunal to proceed further and hence this Execution Application is disposed accordingly. No order as to cost."
6. It also appears, as recorded by the Tribunal while disposing of the execution proceedings, that during the pendency of those proceedings, the State Government sanctioned the pension for the period between 1979 and 1999. Such order was passed by the State Government dated 24.9.2010.
7. It appears that the Government declined to sanction the pension for the period between 1960 and 1979. In such circumstances, the petitioner was left with no other alternative but to file the present petition. It appears that before filing this petition, a contempt application was also filed before this Court. However, the same was disposed of with liberty to avail of appropriate legal remedy available in law.
Page 5 of 18HC-NIC Page 7 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 7 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER
8. I take notice of the fact that series of orders have been passed in this petition by a Co-ordinate Bench time to time.
9. On 13th February, 2014, the following order was passed;
"Heard Ms.Mamta R. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.A.R.Thacker, learned advocate for respondent No.4.
This Court has also gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3.
The Gujarat Universities Services Tribunal has, while allowing the application of the petitioner, directed the respondents to prepare the pension papers and send the same to the Office of Commissioner of Higher Education, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the judgment. The judgment is dated 12.09.2007. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen and has retired from service in the year 1999. It is undisputed that the respondents have not challenged this judgment before this Court and have accepted the same. It is, therefore, unfortunate that a Senior Citizen, who has retired from service long ago, is deprived of the pensionary benefits granted to him by the Tribunal. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, no plausible reason has been mentioned for not releasing the benefits granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner. The said affidavit-in-reply has been filed as though the judgment of the Tribunal is not binding upon respondents Nos.2 and 3, forgetting the fact that the said judgment would be binding, as it has now attained finality.
Mr.A.R.Thacker, learned advocate for respondent No.4- Saurashtra University submits that the University has already forwarded the entire pension papers to respondent No.2 on 27.06.2012. In view of this fact as well, there is hardly any justification on the part of respondents Nos.1 to 3 for not processing the proposal for grant of pension to the petitioner, as directed by the Tribunal.Page 6 of 18
HC-NIC Page 8 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 8 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER Respondents Nos.1 to 3 may apprise this Court regarding the steps taken by them in processing the proposal sent by respondent No.4-University and the period of time which would be necessary for the final decision to be taken.
In absence of compliance of this order, responsible and senior officers of respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall remain present in the Court, on the next date of hearing.
List on 03.03.2014.
Direct service of this order is permitted. "
10. On 14th March, 2013, the following order was passed;
"This is a gross case in which, despite the fact that the petitioner has retired in the year 1998, the amount of admissible pension has not been granted to him, till date.
As recorded in the order dated 13.02.2014, respondent No.4-Saurashtra University, has already forwarded the entire pension papers of the petitioner to respondent No.2, on 27.06.2012. There is a judgment of the Gujarat University Services Tribunal in favour of the petitioner, that has attained finality. However, respondents Nos.1 to 3 do not appear to have taken any steps in processing the proposal for grant of pension to the petitioner.
A responsible and senior officer of respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall remain present in the Court, on the next date of hearing in order to apprise the Court regarding the steps taken by the said respondents in processing the proposal sent by respondent No.4-University and the period of time within which the judgment of the Tribunal shall be complied with.
List on 19.04.2014."
11. On 19th March, 2014, the following order was passed;
"Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the responsible Officers, namely, Shri Page 7 of 18 HC-NIC Page 9 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 9 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER R.I.Patel, Administrative Officer, Office of Commissioner of Higher Education and Shri I.H.Bhagat, Dy.S.O., Education Department, are present in the Court, today. He prays for time, in order to take written instructions indicating the time period within which the petitioner would receive the full amount of pension as directed by the Tribunal.
List on 21.03.2014."
12. On 2nd April, 2014, the following order was passed;
"1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. Mr.A.R. Thacker, learned advocate for respondent No.4-Saurashtra University maintains that he has forwarded the entire set of pension papers to respondent No.2. In spite of this, respondent No.1 has filed a further affidavit stating that for implementing the judgment of the Tribunal, the following documents would be required:
1)Original Service Book of Nani Vavdi Primary School from 27.10.1960 to 18.7.1969
2)Original Service Book of Shanala Primary School from 25.07.1969 to 06.07.1970
3)Original receipts of refund of CPF amount of above three Primary Schools if they fall under pensionable scheme.
3. It is not disputed that the petitioner has retired in the year 1998 and the order of the Tribunal has been passed on 12.09.2007. In the execution proceedings before the Tribunal, the State Government chose not to appear. This is recorded in the order dated 08.01.2013 of the Tribunal, passed in the Execution Petition. The judgment of the Tribunal has attained finality as it has not been challenged by the State Government. Instead of implementing the said judgment, the matter is being delayed by the State Government, on one pretext or the other, the latest excuse being the documents mentioned in the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. During the interregnum period after the passing of the Page 8 of 18 HC-NIC Page 10 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 10 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER judgment upto the filing of the petition, the respondents have never demanded any documents from the petitioner for implementing the order of the Tribunal. In any case, it is the stand of respondent No.4 that the entire set of papers for pension purposes have been sent to the State Government.
5. The plight of the petitioner, who has retired in the year 1998, and who is now aged 82 years, is to be considered. He ought not to be made to run from pillar to post for his legitimate dues of pension. This calls for some sensitivity on the part of the State Government, in handling cases of senior citizens, such as the present one.
6. Today, Mr.D.R. Chauhan, Legal Officer, Education Department and Mr.R.I. Patel, Administrative Officer from the office of the Commissioner, Higher Education are present in the Court.
7. Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader states, upon instructions, that the State Government shall verify the details of the services of the petitioner from Nani Vavdi Primary School with effect from 27.10.1960 to 18.07.1969 and Shanala Primary School with effect from 25.07.1969 to 06.07.1970, by visiting the said Schools. The original receipts of refund of CPF amount sent by the petitioner to respondent No.4 and forwarded by the University to the State Government shall also be taken into consideration.
The needful be done on, or before, the next date of hearing.
List on 21.04.2014.
This order be implemented in letter in spirit, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
A copy of this order be made available to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, today, for onward transmission and further necessary action."
13. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this Page 9 of 18 HC-NIC Page 11 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 11 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER petition, the Government did pass an order sanctioning the pension for the period between 1960 and 1979 with a condition that such sanction would be subject to their right to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal way back in the year 2007.
14. Be that as it may, the State Government, till this date, has not challenged the order of the Tribunal passed way back in the year 2007. The limited issue for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% for the delayed payment of pension for the period between 1960 and 1979.
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the following facts are not in dispute;
(i) The Tribunal adjudicated the claim of the petitioner and ultimately held that the petitioner was entitled to receive the pension for his service between 1960 and 1999.
(ii) As directed by the Tribunal, the University did prepare the pension papers and forwarded the same to the authority concerned. At this stage, I may say that the details in those papers were only with regard to the service between 1979 and 1999. The University was unable to provide for any details of the service between 1960 and 1979.
(iii) In such circumstances, the Tribunal thought fit to sanction the pension only for the period between 1979 and 1999.
Page 10 of 18HC-NIC Page 12 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 12 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER
(iv) It appears that ultimately the records were found and the Tribunal also thought fit to sanction the pension for the period between 1960 and 1979.
16. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% for the delayed payment of the pension amount for the period between 1960 and 1999.
17. I may also quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua V. State of Haryana and another, 2008 AIR(SC) 1077 The observations of the Supreme Court in para no. 11 are as under:-
"The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of"bounty" is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
18. Here, there is no statutory rule occupying the field for Page 11 of 18 HC-NIC Page 13 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 13 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER payment of any interest relying on which, the members of the Federation can claim the benefit of interest on the delayed payment of their retiral dues. The Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua held that in the absence of statutory rule, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claim of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues is the fundamental right of the petitioners which they can enforce in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
19. When interest is awarded by the Court, our normal feeling is that it is so awarded by way of penalty or punishment. But interest in all cases is not granted by way of penalty or punishment. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India, 2007 (SC) AIR(1198) wherein the concept of grant of interest has been explained in the following manner:-
"It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say ten years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B ten years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal but also interest thereon to B."
20. The above-noted decision of the Supreme Court makes it Page 12 of 18 HC-NIC Page 14 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 14 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER clear that the claim of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues or any other dues, to which an employee is otherwise entitled to, flows from the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The claim for interest cannot be held to be a stale claim as a right to claim interest. All delayed payments of the legitimate dues accrue due to the continuing wrong committed by the State-respondent for withholding the payment of the employees of the retiral dues, causing continuous injury to the petitioners until such payment is made.
21. A system controlled by the bureaucrats can create wrangles to device something which is formulated by the policy makers for the benefit of the citizen is writ large from this case. A beneficial scheme made for social welfare of the employees, can be twisted by the system creating a nightmare for the retired employees, as is quite evident. Something due today may not be available to a person right in time. It is like a person starving today is assured food to be provided after a month or two, by which time, he may die of hunger or the foodstuff itself may rot. If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be.
22. Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits including the legitimate dues under a particular scheme of the retired employees for years together is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin, if not an offence, since no law has declared so. The officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay, causing harassment to the retired employees, must however feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially obnoxious. It is also against the concept of the Page 13 of 18 HC-NIC Page 15 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 15 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER social and economic justice which is one of the founding pillars of our Constitution.
23. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in the people of India. The Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.
24. Regarding the harassment to a common man referring to the observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and Ors., the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1993 6 JT 307, held as under:-
"An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law... A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it... Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. (para 10)"
25. The above observations as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, 2004 5 JT 17.
26. The Respondents being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers are public functionaries. As observed above, under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in Page 14 of 18 HC-NIC Page 16 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 16 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioners. The respondents have the support of entire machinery and various powers of the statute. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the Page 15 of 18 HC-NIC Page 17 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 17 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.(vide Abdul Kuddus Khan V. State of UP and Others, Civil Misc. Writ petition No.22315 of 2008, decided on 22nd February, 2011).
27. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law.
28. In Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 6 SCC 530, the Apex Court said: "No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me personally liable" No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary."
29. In Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, 1996 6 SCC Page 16 of 18 HC-NIC Page 18 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 18 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER 558, the Apex Court has held:
"An arbitrary system indeed must always be corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit."
30. In Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 715 the Court held as follows:
"A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless."
31. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The respondent No.2 is directed to make the necessary payment towards interest at the rate of 10% towards the delayed payment of pension for the period between 1960 and 1979. The interest amount shall be calculated from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. The requisite amount shall be calculated within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of the order, and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner without fail within two weeks thereafter. Any further delay in this regard will be viewed very strictly having regard to the fact that the petitioner is aged about 76 years and is fighting for his right since past eight years. If it is the stance of the State Government that to a certain extent, the University is responsible, it will be open for the Government to take up this issue with the University.
32. With the above, this petition is disposed of.
Page 17 of 18HC-NIC Page 19 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 19 of 20 C/SCA/9514/2013 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid Page 18 of 18 HC-NIC Page 20 of 20 Created On Thu Mar 24 03:07:30 IST 2016 20 of 20