ANJANABEN ASHWINKUMAR BHATT Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Sadhana Sagar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was in service of District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and she opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.10.1998. The pension papers were prepared after the retirement of the petitioner and the same was forwarded through proper channel and ultimately, the Director of Pension and Provident Fund, Gujarat State issued Pension Payment Order on 15.01.2000. After finalization of pension case, pension payment order is issued by the office of Director of Pension and Provident Fund and thereafter, it is for the petitioner to go and collect the payment from concerned Treasury Office, which she received.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record, this Court finds that the petitioner had not retired on attaining the age of superannuation but the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement. In superannuation retirement, the date of retirement of an employee can be known to the authorities but in the case of voluntary retirement, the authority could not have known the date, which an employee would opt for voluntary retirement. Under these circumstances, the authority of the Government cannot be expected to start preparing pension papers in advance, which is normally done two years before date of superannuation retirement of an employee, so that the concerned retiree gets the dues, after his retirement, without delay. In the present case, the petitioner started getting provisional pension and received provisional gratuity soon after her retirement and she does not have any grievance in that regard nor she claims interest on it. There cannot be any commutation from provisional pension and therefore, the same was paid soon after the final Pension Payment Order was issued. It is that amount which is termed as delayed payment by the petitioner. Considering the time table of two years of preparing/finalizing the pension case of an employee, in the facts of this case, this Court does not find any inordinate delay which may entitle the petitioner to get interest. Further it be noted that until pension case was finalized, petitioner was already getting full pension as provisional pension which would also include that part of pension which subsequently is commuted. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to pension.