G R PARIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. G.R.Parikh, the petitioner, who is a senior citizen, in -Person, Ms.Khyati P.Hathi, learned advocate for respondent District Panchayat and Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Authority.

(2.) THIS court had heard the petitioner in person, who is about 73 years of age, at length at least on two dates. This Court had an occasion to observe the demeanor of the petitioner and with all the respect and sympathy which an elderly, aggrieved citizen of our society deserves, this Court heard him.

(3.) HAVING heard the petitioner in person, as well as both the learned advocates for the authorities and having gone through the record, I find that the petitioner who retired in the year 1998, has by this time reconciled to the situation that belatedly also but his pension case is finalised. He has still grievance about the late payment of his dues. I found that the petitioner was more aggrieved by the way he was treated by the District Development Officer at the time of retirement. Even the tenor of affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of respondent Panchayat gives that impression only. Though the affidavit -in -reply was sworn by the District Development Officer, who succeeded the one against whom the petitioner had serious grievance, the tenor as referred above was too harsh. The averments in the petition as well as in rejoinder are to the effect that the District Development Officer then, was not in good terms with the President of the District Panchayat, who is the elected Head of that Panchayat. The averments further go to say that the District Development Officer insisted that the petitioner must not obey the orders of the President of the District Panchayat or the Chairman of the concerned Committee. It is not uncommon that the executive officers on the field, in effect, work under subordination of more than one bosses. Those higher ups may not always be friends inter -se. The field officer tries to balance this situation. Many a times, that balancing act becomes more difficult and to an extent this is accepted as a professional hazard by them. The present case is no exception to this. From the tenor and demeanor of the petitioner I found that he had not much grievance about the monetary loss which he has suffered but he was more aggrieved by the manner and method he was treated at the time of his retirement. Specific reference can be made to the instance of payment of salary. The petitioner being Executive Engineer, was a self -drawing officer. He would send his pay -bill to the Accounts Officer who, in turn, would issue cheque. There is a specific reference in the pleading that Accounts Officer orally asked the petitioner to submit the pay -bill by treating some of the days as leave without pay, which petitioner refused. The difficulty which the petitioner was facing was being faced by Accounts Officer as well. He had to take care of not displeasing the District Development Officer and he could not give that in writing to the petitioner either. Ultimately, the pay of couple of days less appears to have been paid to the petitioner. At this distant point of time, to go into all those minute details may not be necessary, since as noted above, the grievance of the petitioner who is an elderly man is more about his humiliation, which is not wholly unjustified. Under these circumstances, without going into minute details of dates of actual payment of his dues and calculation of interest thereon and quantifying cost separately, this Court finds that ends of justice would meet, if the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/ -.