Gujarat High Court
Sauratshtra University & 3 vs Harshkant Shashikant Joshi & 3 on 15 January, 2016
Bench: Jayant Patel, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/1298/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1298 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9626 of 2014
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12343 of 2015
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1298 of 2015
==========================================================
SAURATSHTRA UNIVERSITY & 3....Appellant(s)
Versus
HARSHKANT SHASHIKANT JOSHI & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 4
MR ANAND B GOGIA, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA, CAVEATOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 15/01/2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL)
1. We have heard Mr.Shelat appearing with Mr.Thacker for the applicant and Mr.Gogia appearing for respondent no.1-original petitioner.
2. It prima facie appears that even if any Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:22:33 IST 2016 C/LPA/1298/2015 ORDER employee is employed in service on the post and he has worked and has been paid salary, the recovery of the salary cannot be made. Further, when he has retired, even retiral benefits would be required to be paid. Whether University had a sanction of the government or government did not grant sanction- as such is essentially between the government and the University. But in any case, when recovery cannot be made, in normal circumstances, government also would not be entitled to recover the amount from the University. Mr.Gogia, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v/s Rafiq Masih (White Washter) etc., reported in AIR 2015 SC 696 and the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saurashtra University V/s Vibhakar C Sheth in Letters Patent Appeal No.320 of 2014 decided on 4.9.2014.
3. So far as the amount in question is concerned, it has already been deposited with the Tribunal and invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt. Therefore, instead of 10%, the amount of interest earned on the said amount may be payable and not fixed interest @10% p.a. Mr.Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-original petitioner submits that the interest earned on the fixed deposit receipt is Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:22:33 IST 2016 C/LPA/1298/2015 ORDER paid, then his client would not insist for the interest @10% p.a. as observed by the learned Single Judge.
4. We would have finally disposed off the matter, however, Mr.Devnani, learned AGP seeks time to get instructions from the concerned office since uptil now, notice has not been issued.
5. Hence, notice for final disposal returnable on 10.2.2016. By ad-interim order, the operation and implementation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as making observations enabling the State Government to recover the amount from the University is concerned shall remain stayed and suspended. It is clarified that consequently, respondent no.1- original petitioner would be entitled to the amount of retiral benefits but the interest earned on the said investment in the fixed deposit receipt shall be paid to him and the direction of the learned Single Judge so far as payment of interest @10% p.a. would no more be required to be implemented since the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-original petitioner has also declared that the original petitioner shall be satisfied with the interest earned on the fixed deposit receipt after deposit Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:22:33 IST 2016 C/LPA/1298/2015 ORDER of the said amount with the Tribunal shall be sufficient.
6. It has been reported that there are three fixed deposit receipts-one of Rs.6,24,396/- which has matured on 7.1.2016, another of Rs.4,30,616/- which has matured on 7.1.2016 and third of Rs.44,515/- which is maturing on 17.7.2016. As there is now no loss of interest so far as the aforesaid fixed deposit receipts which have matured on 7.1.2016, subject to further orders, the respondent no.1-original petitioner shall be paid the amount of Rs.6,24,396/- + Rs.4,30,616/- + accrued interest, if any. The payment shall be made within 15 (fifteen) days from today. The payment for the remaining amount of Rs.44,515/- shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
(JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Srilatha Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:22:33 IST 2016