KANAIYALAL ATMARAM PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.V.M. Vyas appearing with Mr.A.J. Yagnik for the petitioner, Ms.Amita Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Nirzar Desai, learned Advocate for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

(2.) It is undisputed fact that petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 11.1.1978 and promoted and transferred on deputation with respondent No. 2Corporation asDeputy Executive Engineer w.e.f. 25.7.1989. It is also undisputed fact that till 30.4.2005, petitioner has served on different posts at different places with the respondents and, there was no cause for complaint or any inquiry against him. It is also undisputed fact that on 30.4.2005, petitioner sought voluntary retirement from his services. Pursuant to his request for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.8.2005 i.e. with prior notice of 3 months, department has permitted him to retire w.e.f. 1.8.2005 and, therefore, his services are to be counted till 31.7.2005. Such fact can be confirmed from office order dated 28.7.2005 which is produced by the respondent with their affidavit in reply at Annexure R­1 which confirms that the Government has accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner and since he has completed 25 years of qualifying service, he is entitled to requisite retirement benefit as per Rules. It is also undisputed fact that pursuant to his intimation for retirement, the office has calculated his retirement benefit and forwarded it to the treasury office on 13.12.2005 i.e. well in advance. Therefore, practically, petitioner was entitled to all retirement benefit on 1.8.2005 and if for some reason, it is not paid on the same date, then, at least earliest thereafter but without unnecessary or undue delay on any count including administrative delay or financial constrain of the respondents. It is also undisputed fact that if at all such retirement benefit or other payment is not made in time and if at all there is delay in making such payment beyond one month, then, by different Government Resolutions at different time, the Government has agreed to pay reasonable amount of interest on such payment.

(3.) Whereas, in the present case, now respondent has come forward with altogether a different story that though the petitioner was allowed to retire as discussed hereinabove since he has kept some register; to be endorsed by him during his tenure as Officer of the respondent; blank and, thereby, department has considered it as lacuna on his part in performing his duty and, therefore, not only retirement benefit was withheld but departmental inquiry was initiated against him because according to the respondents even after repeated intimation to fill up such registers, petitioner has not come forward.