IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4963 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- DAHYABHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - V.V. RAM SUBBARAO OF HIS SUCCESSOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 4963 of 1999 MR BM MANGUKIYA for the Petitioner MR ND GOHIL AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date of decision: 14/10/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioners including gratuity, pension, etc. with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of realisation. 2 The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the difference of salary from February 16, 1994 till 31st July, 1996 being the difference of salary of that of the post of Police Inspector and that of Dy.S.P. with interest. 3 In the affidavit-in-reply the respondents have stated that the salary towards upgradation has already been paid to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, nothing further is required to be done in this regard. In any case, this prayer being totally unconnected to the main prayer of seeking interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, this prayer is not considered in the present petition and if there is any amount still outstanding towards the upgradation of the scale, it will be open for the petitioner to take such legal recourse as may be available to him. 4 With respect to the petitioner's main grievance of delay in finalising his retiral benefits, it maybe noted that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner retired on superannuation as Police Inspector with effect from 31st July, 1996. There is no denial of the averments of the petitioner in the petition that he has completed all necessary formalities and filled up the required forms six months prior to his retirement. It is the case of the petitioner, however, that the finalisation of his pension was delayed unduly and the gratuity payable to the petitioner was also not released for considerably long time. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no.4 it can be seen that the amount of GPF was paid only on 27th September, 1998 and the difference of salary on account of higher grade was also paid on 25th August, 1999. The respondents have also stated that the pension and gratuity are also sanctioned by order dated 27th August, 1999 and it can be presumed that the same would have been paid shortly thereafter. 5 From the above narration, it can easily be seen that the petitioner had retired with effect from 31st July, 1996, all his retiral dues including the provident fund, gratuity and pension were paid after more than 2-3 years of his retirement. In order to explain the delay in payment of retirement dues of the petitioner, the respondents, in their affidavit, have stated inter-alia that for calculating the pension and gratuity all relevant facts like leave without pay, increments, higher gradation, etc. are required to be taken into consideration and for completion of all these administrative formalities time is consumed by the respondent-authorities and therefore there is no delay in payment of retiral dues. To point out at what stage and what formality the file of the petitioner's retiral dues moved, the respondents have, in their affidavit, given a lengthy explanation pointing out the stages through which the correspondence and other formalities were undertaken. From the entire narration of the dates and events, one thing can be seen straightway that at no stage the delay lies at the doorstep of the petitioner. At all stages it was inter-departmental correspondence of the Government which consumed the time of more than 2-3 years in finalisation of the retiral dues of the petitioner. From the entire affidavit, I do not find any suggestion by the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for any delay caused in finalisation of his pension and other retiral benefits. Once again in paragraph 4 of the affidavit it is reiterated that in view of the administrative procedure the time is consumed for finalisation of the pension and gratuity of the petitioner and hence there is no delay in payment of the same. It is also stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply that since the petitioner has worked at different district units, necessary details were required to be called for from the respective units and therefore the concerned district units were asked by the office to send the necessary details and time was consumed in collecting the information. 6 The Honourable Supreme Court has been urging the Government authorities to finalise the pension papers of the government servants well before the date of retirement to ensure that the retiral dues are released immediately upon the retirement from the service. If a government servant has discharged his duties honestly and tirelessly, it would be highly unjust to withhold his retiral dues for years together purely on administrative reasons. The explanation for the delay caused by the government authorities cannot be approved. As noticed above, no part of the delay can be attributed to the petitioner and it is only the inter-departmental procedure which consumed the entire period of more than three years in finalising the petitioner's retiral dues. 7 The case of the petitioner for claiming the interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, therefore, is fully justified. It is true that, currently, the interest rates have gone down and the fixed deposits in the banks fetch no more than 6% interest. However, we are concerned with the period of 1996-1999 when the interest rates were relatively higher. This fact is well know of which this Court can take judicial notice. Considering these facts and circumstances, I find that it would be in the interests of justice to direct that the retiral dues of the petitioner released by the respondents should carry 10% simple interest from the date of his retirement till actual payment. 8 In the result, the petition is allowed by directing that the respondents shall pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 10% from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment of all his retiral dues. The respondents shall also pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. 9 In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. (Akil Kureshi, J.) *mohd