Gujarat High Court
Amrutlal J. Bhatt vs State Govt. Of Gujarat And Ors. on 25 March, 1988
Equivalent citations: (1988)2GLR841, (1989)ILLJ141GUJ
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was serving as a Forester in the Forest Department of the State of Gujarat. The respondents wanted to retire the petitioner on this reaching the age of 58 on 30th June 1979, while the contention of the petitioner was that he was governed by the old Rules of Junagadh State and his age of superannuation would be 60 years and 58 years and, therefore, he was entitled to continue in service upto 30th June 1981. The petitioner, on the aforesaid ground, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh. The said suit was decreed by the trial court on 30th April 1982. The trial court held that the petitioner was entitled to be retained in service till he attained the age of 60 years and declared that the order dated 4th June 1979 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30th June 1979 was unconstitutional, void and inoperative. Against this judgment of the trial court, the State of Gujarat filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1982 and the said appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Junagadh on 30th April 1985. There is nothing on record to show that any Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the decision of the District Judge. Mr. Anil R. Dave for the respondents made an oral statement that a Second Appeal was filed and is pending in this Court. But Mr. Dave also conceded that no interim relief has been granted by this Court staying the operation of the order passed by the Courts below. It may also be mentioned here that no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents in this petition.
2. Having heard the learned Advocate Mr. M. D. Rana for the petitioner and Mr. Anil R Dave for the respondents, I am inclined to allow this petition for the reasons which follow.
3. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to continue in service upto 30th June 1981. He filed Regular Civil Suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, as stated earlier. That suit was filed on 22nd June 1979. The petitioner continued in service upto 30th June 1981 by virtue of the interim injunction issued by the trial court in the suit and that fact is not disputed. The petitioner thus continued in active service upto 30th June 1981 by virtue of the injunction granted by the trial court. The suit was also decreed and the said decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Court as stated earlier. In view of this, it is clear that the petitioner continued in service upto 30th June 1981 as his contention that he was entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years was accepted by the Courts below. When the petitioner continued in service upto 30th June 1981 in the circumstances stated above, it is clear that the petitioner will be entitled to pensionary benefits on the footing that her retired on 30th June 1981.
4. It appears that provisional pension was fixed by the respondents and the petitioner was being paid the provisional pension accordingly. But Mr. Rana states that sometime in the month of February 1988, even the payment of provisional pension is stopped. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the reliefs which are enumerated in the final order.
5. Before parting with this judgment, I am constrained to observe here that even though the Court granted injunction pending the suit and the petitioner continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years and even though the trial court decreed the suit and the appeal was dismissed and thereafter even though a statement was made in the execution proceedings that the amount will be calculated and paid up within two months, the amounts were not paid to the petitioner, with the result that the petitioner was constrained to file this petition before this Court. The concerned officers should have realized that by adopting this attitude, they have put the petitioner to unnecessary harassment and expenses and have unnecessarily forced the petitioner to file this petition. By their conduct in not paying up the amount to the petitioner which he was entitled to as right, the Government has also been put to unnecessary expenses and the Government has to pay interest to the petitioner because of the inaction on the part of the concerned officers. This is not the only increase in which it has happened so. We have found in many other cases that in a clear case in which the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs claimed by them, the petitioners were unnecessarily forced to file petitions before this Court, resulting in increase in the file of this Court and putting the Government to unnecessary expenses of defending the litigation in which there was no defence available on the face of it. It is desirable that necessary instructions are issued to all concerned that in such cases payment is made as early as possible and an employee or retired employee is not dragged to the litigation which again increases the file of this Court, which could have been avoided.
6. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the petitioner by allowing him increments which may be due to him according to Rules, taking the date of his retirement as 30th June 1981 instead of 30th June 1979 and also revise and refix his pension accordingly. The respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of arrears which may be found due on account of the refixation of pay and refixation of pension as directed above. The respondents are also directed to pay to the petitioner the amount which may be at his credit in his G.P.F. and also pay him the amount of leave encashment which may be due to him according to Rules. The respondents are also directed to make the payment of the amount of gratuity also to the petitioner, which may be due to him. The respondents are directed to make the payment of the aforesaid amounts together with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of the filing of Execution Application No. 89 of 1985 by the petitioner till the amount is paid up to the petitioner.
7. The respondents shall see that the principal amount as well as interest is calculated and the amount together with the interest is paid to the petitioner as early as possible but not later than three months from today.
8. The respondents to bear their own costs of this petition and pay to the petitioner his cost of this petition, which is quantified at Rs. 500/-.