SCA/4103/2005 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4103 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ========================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================== HAROON RASHID ABDULMATINKHAN PATHAN Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE ========================================= =Appearance : MR VM DHOTRE for the Petitioner MR HS MUNSHAW for the Respondent ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 07/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since the payment of gratuity and provident fund has already been made at the time when the employee was dismissed and he did not make payment back at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, it would not be appropriate now to repay the amount. The SCA/4103/2005 2/3 JUDGMENT question of salary then also gets under cloud because the employee himself has not followed the order of the Tribunal in returning the gratuity and provident fund. The petitioner has not been paid pension since 2002. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner did not join the duty, he was not paid pension as he remained dismissed employee. This proposition set up by the learned counsel for the respondent is under misconception because the respondent knew that his reinstatement has been ordered. The question of payment of gratuity and provident fund was regularly in consideration as he was in regular touch with the employee. The employee could resume his duty if asked. No formal proposal from the respondent is coming forward. Since the petitioner has not worked, for sometime, payment of salary for that period cannot be countenanced. But, then this cannot be lost sight. But from 2002, the employee was without pension. So delayed payment of pension entails the respondent to pay interest on it. The respondent should calculate the amount of pension from the day the petitioner is deemed to have retired at the rate which he was entitled to receive giving notional benefits for the payment of salary for which he is not said to have worked. Over and above the pension, they would pay interest at the rate of 15% within a period of six weeks. They would also pay the enhanced amount of gratuity, which gets enhanced by his extended service. SCA/4103/2005 3/3 JUDGMENT 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar