NAGINDAS J MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Hathi for the petitioner; Mr. Siraj Ghori, learned AGP for the respondents. It is a clear case of lethargic approach of the State Government in not paying the due amount to a retired employee since number of years only under the guise of pendency of the litigation and that is how, when this matter was taken up today for final hearing, though the grievance has been satisfied after a pretty long time, request has been made on behalf of the petitioner to award interest upon the said payment which has not been made in time to the petitioner and the request has also been made for awarding heavy costs against the State Government. For considering these two requests made by the learned advocate Mr. Hathi for the petitioner, few facts of the present petition are required to be kept in view, as under:

(2.) On 18.12.1992, affidavit in rejoinder to the petition was filed by the Under Secretary admitting the delay in compliance of the judgment of this court without making any reference about the refixation of pension and payment of the difference of pension as can be seen from para 7 and 10. Rejoinder thereto was filed on 27.1.2003. According to the petitioner, the respondents have complied with the judgment and order of this court and the payments to that effect with consequential benefits have been made in April, 1987 namely four years after the judgment and (b)difference of Rs.7000.00 payable in 1969 is paid in 1987 i.e. after 18 years. According to the petitioner, the pension refixation and the payment of difference seems to have been done somewhere around 5th June, 1993 i.e. 13 years after the retirement and and ten years after the judgment and that too after three litigations. According to the petitioner, compensation in the form of quantified cost as well as interest is required to be paid as claimed in the petition and on the well settled principles, when delay is not explained, as there was willful and deliberate delay in settling the claim of the petitioner as compared to other cases of similarly situated employees as referred to in the petition, showing discriminatory treatment and total lack of respect in complying with the judgment of the Court. The petitioner has reached the age of 85 years at present.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned advocate Mr. P.V.Hathi for the petitioner in view of the approach and conduct of the respondents and willful non compliance of this court's order and judgment, the petitioner is entitled for interest and costs. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following two judgments :