SCA/11098/1998 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11098 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================================== 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 ? ============================================================== SUMALBEN WD/O. DECEASED DAYABHAI TAPUBHAI - Petitioner(s) Versus GARIYADHAR MUNICIPAL BOROUGH & 2 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR YV SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DP VORA for Respondent(s) : 1, Ms MITA PANCHAL, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 02/03/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.This petition has been filed by the widow of an employee of Gariyadhar Municipal Borough. Initially, prayer was made for grant of family pension with SCA/11098/1998 2/7 JUDGMENT interest from the due date. During the pendency of the petition, arrears of family pension has already been paid to the petitioner. Now the question regarding interest for the delayed payment of pension therefore survives. 2.Short facts leading to the petition are that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as Safai Kamdar by respondent No.1. At the relevant time, there was Gariyadhar Gram Panchayat, which later on was converted into a Municipal borough. The husband of the petitioner continued in service from 1.11.50 with some hick-up but without any legal break in service right upto his death on 24.6.80. By that time, family pension scheme was already introduced for the employees of respondent No.1. The petitioner, was therefore, entitled to receive family pension upon the death of her husband. About the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the family pension, virtually, there is no dispute raised by the respondents. 3.On 10.5.99, this Court noted that a draft of State Bank of Saurashtra, Gariyadhar Branch for an amount of Rs.1,13,162/- in the name of Registrar, High Court has been tendered by the learned advocate for respondent No.1. The Registrar was, therefore, SCA/11098/1998 3/7 JUDGMENT directed to encash the draft and invest the same in fixed deposit. Subsequently, by the order dated 23th July 1999, learned Judge observed that the counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents had delayed the payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and the petitioner, should therefore be granted interest on such amount. It was recorded that this question will be considered at the time of final hearing. Subsequently, by an order dated 23rd August 2004, learned single Judge of this Court directed release of the amount of Rs.1,13,162/- with interest accumulated thereon in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the family pension for the period between 24.6.80 till July 1999 has already been paid to the petitioner. Learned advocate Shri Shah submitted that the petitioner has thereafter been receiving periodical payments from the respondents. The only question that therefore calls for consideration is with respect to the interest payable on the delayed payment of family pension. 4.Learned advocate Shri D.P.Vora appearing for respondent No.1 orally tried to submit that there was no fault on the part of the respondents in making the payment of family pension belatedly. He tried to urge SCA/11098/1998 4/7 JUDGMENT that the petitioner is responsible for the delay caused in paying the amount in question. However, he conceded that the respondents have not filed any affidavit nor brought on record any material to suggest that the petitioner is responsible for delay in payment of family pension. He prayed for time for filing reply. Learned AGP Ms.Panchal also submitted that for want of necessary material and for want of any reply on the part of the State Government, she is unable to point out whether the petitioner was in any way responsible for delay in payment of family pension. She also prayed for time for filing reply or for taking instructions. The petitioner who is a widow of the deceased employee has been clamouring for her legal rights since many years now. This Court had as far back as on 23rd July 1999 put the respondents to notice that the question of interest on delayed payment of family pension will be considered at the time of final hearing. Many years thereafter, the petition is taken up for final disposal. From the record it appears that from September 2005 till date, the petition was placed on board as as many as nine occasions. No reply has been filed so far. I had, therefore, indicated to the learned advocates appearing for the respondents that no SCA/11098/1998 5/7 JUDGMENT further time can be granted unconditionally and the respondents who is interested in filing reply must bear the cost for making such a request at such a belated stage. Both the learned advocates indicated that in such a case, they would not be interested in seeking adjournment. 5.In view of the above developments, I have proceeded to hear the matter on the available material on record. The petitioner is the widow of an employee who expired on 24th June 1980 after putting in nearly 30 years of service. Admittedly, she was entitled to receive family pension. Admittedly such pension was not paid to her right from 1980 till July 1999. The petitioner has stated on affidavit that she made several representations to the respondents and approach was made to the Authorities under respondent No.1 as well the State Authorities. However, her family pension was not released. It was only after the petitioner filed the present petition, the respondents deposited the arrears of family pension in the year 1999 which amount had fallen due and payable to the petitioner continuously since June 1980. From the material on record, it is impossible to conclude that the petitioner was in any manner responsible for delay in SCA/11098/1998 6/7 JUDGMENT finalising her family pension. The respondents, therefore cannot escape the liability of paying the amount with interest. It may be noted that the entire period from the date of the husband of the petitioner i.e. 24th June 1980 till actual tender of family pension i.e. 23rd July 1999, is approximately 20 years. It also needs to be noted that the entire amount was due and payable right from 1980 and the amount of Rs.1,13,162/- was the total culmination of family pension due and payable to the petitioner for the entire period. One also has to bear in mind the interest rate prevailing at the relevant time. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find it appropriate that the respondents shall pay interest on the delayed payment of family pension amount of Rs.1,13,162/- at the rate of 12 per cent simple interest for a period of ten years which is half of the approximate total delay in releasing the amount. Respondent No.1 shall cause the payment to be made within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It will be between respondent Nos.1 and the State Government to decide who will ultimately bear the burden. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 shall also pay individually a cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the SCA/11098/1998 7/7 JUDGMENT petitioner. 6.With the above directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)