Gujarat High Court
Bachubhai Jerambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13310 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
BACHUBHAI JERAMBHAI PADHIYAR(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
ARCHITA M PRAJAPATI(8241) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archita M. Prajapati for the petitioner and learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel appearing for the respondent - State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief;
"(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition.
Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined (B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 27/12/2017 at Annexure D and further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 and 3 to calculate and pay the interest @ 10% per annum on the delayed payment of Higher Grade Pay Scale in Salary as well as Pension from 1/6/2002 to 30/11/2016 and upon the delayed payment of 300 days leave encashment which was required to be paid on 31/7/2004 in the light of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in SCA No.10142 of 2009 within a stipulated period;
(C) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and operation of the communication dated 27/12/2017 and further be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein to calculate and pay the interest @10% per annum on the delayed payment of Higher Grade Pay Scale in Salary as well as pension from 1/6/2002 to 30/11/2016 and 300 days leave encashment;
(D) Any other relief deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case may please be granted.
3. SHORT FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE :
3.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted here that original petitioner died during the pendency of this matter, his legal heirs brought on record and as such, entitled to get relief as prayed by the original petitioner in this petition. 3.2. As per the prayers made by in this petition that having received higher grade pay-scale in salary, higher pension and leave encashment, belatedly much after his Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined retirement, entitled to receive interest on such delayed payment.
3.3. It is not in dispute that deceased - petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2004 but not granted retirement benefits by respondent as there was an amount towards market rent i.e. Rs.4,53,943/- not paid by him to respondent-State. So, in view of government dues unpaid, retiral benefits not released by State at given point of time.
3.4. As such, according to petitioner, aforesaid amount could not have been withheld by respondent and in law, not entitled to deduct any amount out of such amount towards due and payable market rent, that too without following due process of law. It is a case of petitioner that such procedure not followed by respondent. 3.5. It appears that adjustment of amount i.e. market rent from aforesaid retiral benefit etc., and entitlement of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment benefits, not paid in time, earlier in point of time, petitioner preferred separate Special Civil Application No.10266 of 2008 before this Court to get such reliefs. As Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined such, said writ petition is dismissed today by this Court by way of separate judgment/order. Hence, adjustment of market rent due/payable by petitioner to State and entitlement of petitioner to get interest on delay payment of leave encashment is already decided against petitioner.
3.6. Be that as it may, fact remains that so far as granting higher grade pay-scale in salary and consequently higher pension are concerned, undisputedly, petitioner, though retired from service on 31.07.2004, granted such benefits by respondent only on 28.10.2016 and 03.01.2017 respectively. The amount of Rs.7,602/- and Rs.2,72,362/-
credited in the account of petitioner towards higher grade pay-scale in salary and difference in higher grade pay in pension respectively for a period as shown in para- 2 of the petition.
3.7. So far as payment of leave encashment of Rs.96,760/-
credited in account of petitioner on 30.06.2016 is concerned, as observed herein above, this Court in the aforementioned petition already dealt with such aspect and not granted interest on such amount, i.e. no interest Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined granted on leave encashment amount paid by respondent to the petitioner on 30.06.2016.
3.8. The petitioner, having received aforesaid amount after inordinate delay, claimed interest on such amount by his application dated 20.11.2017, submitted with respondent. Such request of petitioner came to be turned down by respondent, vide its communication dated 27.12.2017 (Annexure-D). Hence, the present petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would respectfully submit that granting benefit of higher grade pay-scale in salary and given its effect in the pension of the petitioner was statutory duty cast upon the respondent who required under law to make such payment / release the benefits immediately as soon as accrued in favour of petitioner. It is submitted that though petitioner retired from his service on 31.07.2004, undisputedly, the respondent released such benefits in favour of petitioner only on 28.10.2016 and 03.01.2017 respectively, whereby failed in its statutory duty, thus, petitioner entitled to claim interest for such delay payment. Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined 4.2. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would further submit that as per the settled legal position of law that when respondent found guilty of not making service benefits to its employee in time, such employee is entitled to receive the withheld amount once released, with interest. 4.3. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would respectfully submit that despite several representations made to the respondent authority by petitioner in the year 2013 including filing aforesaid writ petition in year 2008, no effective steps were taken by the respondent in releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner, rather under pretext, so-called recovery of market rent from the petitioner, entire service benefits of petitioner withheld. 4.4. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would further submit that as per Order dated 15.09.2008, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.10266 of 2008, whereby respondent was authorized to deduct 50% of retirement dues to adjust against amount of Rs.4,53,943/- (market rent), there is no good reason available with respondent to withhold the balance retirement benefits including payment of higher grade pay-scale and fixation of higher Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined pension thereof.
4.5. Learned advocate Ms.Prajapati would further submit that when respondent failed to discharge its statutory duty and wrongly withheld the benefits accrued to petitioner, given w.e.f. the year 2002 itself when entitled to receive 2nd higher grade pay-scale and consequently higher pension on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.07.2004, in that view of the matter, respondent is liable to pay interest on such delayed payment. 4.6. To make her submissions good, learned advocate Ms. Prajapati placed heavy reliance upon three decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court which in fact are annexed with this petition. They are as under:
a)Special Civil Application No.780 of 2016 dated 15.01.2016;
b)Special Civil Application No.17415 of 2017 dated 04.05.2018;
c) Special Civil Application No.10142 of 2009 dated 30.01.2013.
4.7. Making the above submissions, learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would humbly request this Court to grant prayers made in this petition and further requested to Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined issue suitable direction/s to the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on such delayed payment.
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT - STATE:-
5.1. Per contra, learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Parth Patel would vehemently submit that there is no default committed by the respondent in releasing the amount in favour of the petitioner in the year 2016/2017, i.e. higher grade pay-scale and higher pension. It is submitted that when there is no default and deliberate inaction on the part of respondent, germane from record, this Court may not direct respondent to pay any interest on such amount, as claimed.
5.2. Learned AGP would respectfully submit that prior to retirement, at no point of time, petitioner made any grievance of not receiving any higher grade pay-scale and as such, relevant Government Resolution on the basis of which such benefits released in favour of the petitioner came into effect on 02.07.2007. In such factual scenario, petitioner cannot claim interest w.e.f. Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined 01.06.2002, when paid such higher grade pay-scale in the year 2016/2017.
5.3. Learned AGP would further submit that as soon as the request made by the petitioner to grant him 2 nd higher pay-scale, process to give him such benefit, has been undertaken by respondent, and accordingly, passed Office Order on 14.08.2015 (Annexure-B), whereby appropriate amount released towards higher grade pay- scale and higher pension in favour of the petitioner. 5.4. Lastly, learned AGP would submit that there is no policy to grant interest for such delayed payment framed by State and as such, no case is made out by petitioner to get interest as claimed in the petition. 5.5. To buttress his arguments, learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. Neutral citation - 2024 INSC 803, as well reported in 2024 (12) SCALE 409 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 831.
5.6. Making the aforesaid submissions, he would request this Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined Court to reject this petition.
6. No other and further submissions being made by any of learned advocates.
ANALYSIS
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length, following facts emerge which remained undisputed on record.
a) The petitioner came to be retired from his service on 31.07.2004.
b) Retirement dues were not released in favour of the petitioner by respondent due to government dues of Rs.4,53,943/- towards market rent, as according to respondent - State, petitioner illegally occupied Quarter No.17 at Chotila, for which, he was required to make payment of market rent.
c) Petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.10266 of 2008 challenging such withholdment / deduction of amount towards market rent, as aforesaid, wherein this Court vide its order dated 15.09.2008 passed following order; Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule.
3. The respondent has ordered to recover Rs.4,53,943/- towards the market rent of the Government quarter no. 17 at Chotila which was occupied by the petitioner and has also not paid the retirement dues to the petitioner.
4. In that view of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed:
(i)The respondent shall deduct 50% of the retirement dues and shall adjust the same against the amount of Rs.
4,53,943/-. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months.
(ii)The balance amount(Rs. 4,53,943 - 50% of retirement dues) shall be recovered by way of monthly installments from the pension which will be 25% of the pension amount.
(iii)It is made clear that this arrangement is made in favour of the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides.
(iv)The parties shall complete the pleadings within a period of nine months.
(v)It will be open to the petitioner to move for early hearing after the pleadings are over."
d) The respondent thereafter appears to have followed the aforesaid order and deducted 50% of such amount from retirement dues and given effect of such order by recovering balance dues from pension, which can be seen from subsequent communications issued by Department concerned, having placed on record by petitioner in this petition.
Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
e) Nonetheless, despite such recovery made by respondent from petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that why respondent not granted benefit of 2 nd higher grade pay-scale to petitioner, which in fact he was entitled to receive w.e.f. 31.05.2002 by Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 and consequently given its effect on pension to be paid to petitioner.
f) There is nothing on record to suggest that any Office Order passed by the respondent - State to withhold any such amount because of aforesaid dues towards market rent not paid by the petitioner.
g) The release of 2nd higher grade pay-scale in favour of the petitioner undertaken by respondent only on 14.08.2015, when petitioner requested in year 2013. On said date office order came to be passed, thereby, released such benefits and credited arrears in the account of the petitioner on 28.10.2016. Also paid arrears towards payment of difference in higher grade pay-scale in pension for a period between August 2004 to November 2016, released and credited in his account on 3.1.2017.
h) The petitioner having approached respondent to grant Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined interest on such delayed payment, the same was denied vide impugned communication dated 27.12.2017.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts emerged from the record, it would indicate that there was delay in payment as regards 2nd higher grade pay-scale and pension thereon in favour of the petitioner by respondent.
9. The only defence/excuse on part of respondent - State as submitted by learned AGP, the petitioner has sought for such benefits only in the year 2013; it was released in the year 2016 and 2017. As such, when any Government Resolution passed by the State, whereby confers higher grade pay-scale in favour of its employee/s, it was duty upon the concerned Officials of the State to release such higher grade pay-scale to all eligible employees as soon as possible without any unjustifiable delay. It is unfathomable that such benefits could have been released by the State, only when demanded by its employee. This Court is unable to subscribe such stand taken by the State, as its contrary to law. It is highly deplorable that State could release the payment of higher grade pay-scale / higher pension to the petitioner in the year 2016 / 2017 respectively, only on Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined request made by the petitioner in the year 2013.
10. According to my view, there was complete carelessness, negligence and non-application of mind on the part of the respondent - State when not released aforesaid benefits in favour of the petitioner as accrued in his favour as soon as Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 came into effect. It may true that once such Resolution passed by State Government, department concerned may take some time to process and release the benefits to its eligible employees, which are more in number, but at the same time, it cannot be gainsaid that such benefits can be released only if requested by eligible employee/s concerned.
11. Apart from the above, in the present case, when petitioner having approached this Court in the year 2008 by way of aforesaid writ petition, wherein also complaint of not releasing all retirement benefits made and as such, sought to release such retirement benefits with interest, then, according to my view, it was a wake-up call for respondent
- State to release all legitimate benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner. Having not done so, without any just reasons, respondent - State committed default in not Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined releasing such benefits to petitioner in time, which entails State to pay interest on such delayed payment.
12. The judgments which are relied upon by learned advocate Ms. Prajapati, in support of her submissions, would helpful to the petitioner, inasmuch as, in cited cases, when this Court having found that respondent - State has not released the legitimate dues of petitioner in time, petitioner concerned held entitled to receive interest on such delayed payment from State. The issue germen in this petition is no longer remain res integra, as settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in its number of decisions, that employee/pensioner concerned would entitle to receive interest for getting the service/retiral benefits be lately without any justifiable reasons, from employer-State. [ See - D.D. Tewari V/s Uttar Haryana Bijnli Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894]
13. So far as decision so cited by learned AGP of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik and Ors. (supra) is concerned, it appears that in cited case, appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court were found to be fence- sitter who approached the Court on gathering knowledge Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined that other similarly situated employees have been benefited by some order and in that peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no interest was granted in their favour. As such, facts of the present case and the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is completely different and thereby, ratio of the aforesaid decision would not be applicable here, thus, not assist the submission of learned AGP.
14. At the cost of repetition, it is now well settled legal position of law that whenever this Court finds that respondent - State has withheld the retirement benefits / statutory benefits of employee/s concerned, without any justifiable reasons / cause, this Court well, within its Constitutional Right to grant interest in favour of such employee/s, thereby, direct the respondent - State to pay interest for delayed period on such amount i.e. service/retiral benefits.
15. In view of forgoing reasons, this Court reaches to conclusion that without any justifiable reasons, respondent
- State has not paid aforementioned service/retiral benefits to petitioner in time, which released after quite long time.
16. Thus, in view of aforesaid, this Court hold that petitioner Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined is entitled to get simple interest @ 9% on the aforementioned amount i.e. difference of higher grade pay- scale in salary between period from June 2002 to July 2014 as well as difference in higher grade pay-scale in pension between August 2004 to November 2016.
17. Now, next question which arose for consideration as to whether said interest to be paid from the date as sought by petitioner as prayed in this petition or some other date?
18. The petitioner having claimed interest to be paid from 01.06.2002 till 30.11.2016 on all aforesaid benefits. It is not in dispute that 2nd higher grade pay scale benefit accrued in favour of petitioner due to G.R. dated 02.07.2007, thus, petitioner cannot allow to claim interest from 01.06.2002. This Court cannot oblivious and ignore following facts, that Government Resolution granting 2 nd higher grade pay-scale came into effect from 02.07.2007, whereby petitioner having been entitled for such higher grade pay-scale, keeping in mind the fact that such benefit of higher grade pay scale requires detail process at end of department and thereby given its benefit to all its employees, and also undisputedly he instituted earlier writ petition on Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined 08.08.2008 claiming interest on retiral dues, and further, at time of actual retirement, dispute between parties pending i.e. recovery of market rent, and demand of aforesaid benefits raised in year 2013, according to my view, considering aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I would like to grant simple interest @ 9% on aforementioned amount w.e.f. 01.01.2009 till aforementioned payment received by the petitioner in his bank account i.e. 28.10.2006 & 03.01.2017 respectively. CONCLUSION
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, discussion and reasons, only inescapable conclusion and direction would be thus:
19.1. The respondent - State is held liable to pay interest on service/retiral benefits paid very late to petitioner without any justifiable reasons. The respondent - State requires to pay simple interest @ 9% for aforementioned delayed payment to petitioner - now to his legal heirs, albeit w.e.f. 01.01.2009 till aforementioned payment received by the petitioner in his bank account i.e. 28.10.2006 & 03.01.2017 Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined respectively.
19.2. The petitioner is entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.01.2009 till 28.10.2016 on Rs.7602/- (payment of difference amount of higher grade pay-scale in salary) being paid. 19.3. The petitioner is also entitled to receive simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on amount of Rs.2,72,362/- from 01.01.2009 to 03.01.2017 (payment of difference of higher grade pay-scale in pension).
19.4. The respondents herein are directed to calculate and release / pay aforesaid amount of simple interest in favour of widow of deceased petitioner i.e. Petitioner No.1.1 viz. Jayaben Wd/o Bachubhai Jerambhai Padhiyar.
19.5. The aforesaid payment of interest amount be made in bank account of petitioner No.1.1 - widow of original petitioner, on proper verification, on or before 15 th January, 2026, failing which, petitioners are entitled to receive interest on such amount of simple interest as aforesaid at the rate of 9% p.a. from 16.01.2026 till its actual realization.
Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025 undefined
20. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. No costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Lalji Desai Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:29:06 IST 2025