Gujarat High Court
Hansaben Sachidanand Trivedi vs State Of Gujarat & 6 on 20 July, 2015
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2121 of 2014
==========================================================
HANSABEN SACHIDANAND TRIVEDI....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.RUTVIJ OZA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2, 4
MR.DARSHAN DAVE for HL PATEL ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the
Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 5 , 7
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 20/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
1. RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr.Oza, the learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr.Munshaw, the learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 7. The respondent No.6, although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet has chosen not to appear either in person or through an advocate and oppose this petition.
Page 1 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired primary teacher, has prayed for the following reliefs.
"(A) Be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate, order or direction, by directing the respondents to make payment of due retiral benefits and arrears of pension along with 12% interest;
(C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of present petition, be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of due retiral benefits and arrears of pension along with 12% interest.
(D) Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s which deems fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. The facts of this case may be summarized as under.
4. The petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher in the Taluka School No.1 at Village:Bhatiya, Taluka:Jamkalyanpur, District:
Jamnagar, on 04.07.1988. The petitioner was working as a Primary Teacher under the District Panchayat, Jamnagar.
5. On the request made by the petitioner, he was Page 2 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER transferred from the Taluka School No.1 of Jamkalyanpur to the School No.9 at Shahpur, Ahmedabad, run and managed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The petitioner resumed her duties at the School No.9 Shahpur, Ahmedabad on 08.02.2000. She was, thereafter, transferred to the School No.13 at Saraspur, Ahmedabad. She retired on 30.11.2009 from the School No.13 at Saraspur, Ahmedabad. The petitioner in all put 21 years of pensionable service with the entitlement towards other retiral benefits according to the policy and scheme of the State Government.
6. It appears from the materials on record that in 2009 when she retired as a teacher from the School run and managed by the Corporation, the Corporation promptly fixed the pension as well as paid all her retiral dues. However, the Panchayat i.e. the respondent No.5 failed to fix the pension of the petitioner for the service she rendered while she was in the Panchayat service.
7. The following amounts were paid to her after a period of 6 years i.e. on 26.02.2015.
• Gratuity Rs.1,28,447/
• Commuted Pension: Rs.1,93,516/
• Pension fixed at Rs. 4,816/
• Arrears towards the amount of pension to the Page 3 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER tune of Rs.4,93,839/.
8. The short point for my consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to interest at a particular rate far the delayed payment at the end of the Panchayat.
9. I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua V. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 1007. 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, wer are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be wellfounded 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, wellfounded and needs no authority in support thereof. In Page 4 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER 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."
10. I may also quote my own decision dated 16.06.2015 in the case of the Gujarat State Pensioners Federation Vs. State of Gujarat and others, passed in SCA No.8251 of 2015. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
"18. 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 AIR (SC) 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."
19. The abovenoted decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that the claim of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues or any other dues, to which an employee Page 5 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER 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 Staterespondent for withholding the payment of the employees of the retiral dues, causing continuous injury to the petitioners until such payment is made.
20. Apparently, therefore, the delay in payment of Higher Pay Scale earned by the retired teachers by the State is without any authority of law. It has been caused only due to their own conjectures and surmises and for non statutory alleged practice and bottleneck created thereby. This kind of practice perhaps is observed to harass poor retired employees. In the absence of any other valid reason shown by the learned counsel for the State, this Court is justified to infer as above. Such approach cannot be approved or condoned but deserves to be condemned in the strongest words.
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 Page 6 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER 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 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 observatins as such have been Page 7 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER reiterated in Ghaziabad Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 JT 17(SC).
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 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 exemployees 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 accountof, 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 Page 8 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER 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 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 Page 9 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER which is arbitrary."
29. In Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, 1996 6 SCC 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 dnot 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. It could be argued that all the decisions referred to above are in connection with wrongful withholding of the retiral benefits like pension gratuity etc. and the grant of the higher pay scale may not strictly fall within the ambit of retiral benefits. Higher Pay Grads Scale is something which the employees earn during their service in accordance with the rules and policy framed by the State Government. There is an object behind such policy of grant of higher pay scale, after particular period of service. Once an employee earns such benefit then it is expected they should be paid in terms of money. The benefit which accrued in the year 1995 came to be sanctioned only in the year 2014 and that to only with the intervention of the Court.
32. In my view nothing further is necessary Page 10 of 11 C/SCA/2121/2014 ORDER to be adjudicated. The State Government is directed to make good the amount of interest at the rate of 10% per annum and shall give effect to its own Resolution dated 8th October 2014, (Annexure 'C' to this petition) within a period of eight weeks from today.
33. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition succeeds in part. Although the petitioner has prayed for interest at the rate of 12% per annum, yet I am inclined to direct that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 30.11.2009 till the date of actual payment. The Taluka Development Officer, District:Jamnagar and the District Primary Education Officer are directed to calculate the requisite amount to be paid towards the interest at the rate of 8% per annum and make the actual payment to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order.
12. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) ANKIT Page 11 of 11