MOHANBHAI TAPUBHAI JAMBUCHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9 to 12% on the amount of Rs. 89,982/- which is received by the petitioner on 07. 01. 2009 which infact the petitioner was supposed to be paid in December, 1998. It appears that aforesaid amount of Rs. 89,982/- is towards pension and gratuity now payable to the petitioner.

(2.) MR. OZA, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired in December, 1998 and the petitioner was entitled to pension and gratuity immediately on retirement. However, the petitioner has been paid pension and gratuity only in the month of January, 2009 and for the delay there was no lapse on the part of the petitioner and/or the petitioner is not responsible for the delay at all. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity. Mr. Oza, learned Advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. R. Bhanot v/s. Union of India reported in AIR 1994 SC 1111 and in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. V/s. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SC 356. Therefore, it is requested to allow present petition.

(3.) PETITION is opposed by Mr. Pranav Dave, learned AGP. It is submitted that as such dispute with respect to entitlement of amount of pension and pensionary benefits and other recoveries was pending before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 17649 of 2003, which finally came to terminated on 12. 05. 2008 and on the basis of judgment and order passed by this Court in aforesaid Special Civil Application, pension of the petitioner was required to be fixed accordingly and only initiation of recovery came to be quashed and set aside. Even the learned Single Judge in the said order dated 12. 05. 2008 clarified that the respondent herein shall fix last pay of the petitioner as if no order of promotion is passed and accordingly pay the pension and other retiral dues. It is submitted that accordingly the respondents have subsequently fixed the pension of the petitioner and arrears of pension and gratuity has been paid. It is submitted that there was no deliberate delay and/or negligence on the part of the respondents in not paying pension and gratuity at the time of retirement which warrants awarding interest. Therefore, it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner will not be of any assistance to the petitioner.