RAJIKANT R UPADHYAY Vs. GUJARAT GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner interest as found just and reasonable from the date of retirement till the actual day of payment by mis Court on the amount of pension and gratuity etc., forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner on reaching the age of 58 years retired from the post of Principal of the respondent No. 3 School on 31-10-1986. As per the Rules and Regulations of the department concerned, the responsibility of preparing, verifying and sending the pension papers of the Assistant Teacher to the District Education Officer concerned lies on the Principal of the School. But in case of the Principal of the School, such responsibility lies on the management of the School. Thus, the respondent No. 3 was required to prepare, verify and send to the District Education Officer, District Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar for further necessary action. But the respondents did not send the pension papers of the petitioner to the aforesaid District Education Officer, District Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar. Hence, the petitioner filed Application No. 324 of 1986 before the Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 16-10-1986 and after hearing the parties concerned the Secretary, Secondary Education Tribunal passed the interim order directing the respondents to send pension papers of the petitioner within a period of seven days on 3-12-1986. But the respondent No. 3 management of the School with a view to harass the petitioner send the pension papers to the District Education Officer on 22-12-1986 but without signing and verifying the said papers, and hence the District Education Officer was not able to finalize the pension case of the petitioner. Therefore, the Secondary Education Tribunal vide order dated 24-12-1986 directed the President or Secretary of respondent No. 3 management of the School to go to the office of the department within seven days from the date of receipt of the order and sign the relevant entries and verification in service book and also sign pension papers there in D.E.O.'s office, so that the finalisation of the pension, gratuity etc. is not delayed any further. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal was not complied with and hence, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 49 of 1987 for initiating the contempt proceeding and as per the directions of this Court, the respondent No. 3 signed the pension papers in this Court on 27-11-1987 and the respondent No. 3 went to the office of the District Education Officer at Himmatnagar to sign the remaining papers on 28-11-1987. Thus, the order of the Tribunal was complied with and after lapse of 23 months the petitioner was given provisional pension.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 has delayed deliberately in sending the pension papers to the District Education Officer, Himmatnagar, and hence, penal interest be imposed on the respondents to which the petitioner is entitled as initially the papers were not sent to the District Education Officer, Himmatnagar. Later on, the pension papers of the petitioner were sent but they were not signed by the respondent No. 3 management of the School and hence the petitioner moved the Secondary Education Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Tribunal directed the management of the respondent No. 3 School to sign the pension papers within a week. Even though the respondent No. 3 had not complied with the order of the Tribunal and the petitioner had moved the contempt proceedings before this Court and the parties appeared and in the Court, the papers were signed and the order of the Tribunal was complied with. Thus, there was deliberate intention on the part of the respondent No. 3 to harass the petitioner by not sending the pension papers of the petitioner to the department concerned within scheduled time, and hence, the respondents should be directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioners. Thus, the petitioner got the provisional pension on 20-9-1988 i.e., after a lapse of 23 months. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got the amount of his pension and gratuity on 11-5-1989 i.e., after a lapse of 30 months without any fault of the petitioner.