[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nikhil Meena Patel vs Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, S.M.Modak
2026:BHC-AS:2769-DB
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA by
Digitally signed
URMILA
PRAMOD
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD INGALE
INGALE Date: 2026.01.21
10:48:49 +0530
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 65 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6972 OF 2022
Nikhil Meena Patel ... Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar
Haveli and Daman and Diu and ors. .... Respondents
****
Mr. Vikram N. Walawalkar i/b Mr. Amey C. Sawant, for the
Petitioner.
Dr. Sanjay Jain a/w Mr. Harsh Dedhia, for Respondents No. 1, 2 &
3.
****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. Heard Mr.Walawalkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Dr.Jain, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3.
2. The Petitioner alleges breach of the order dated
27/06/2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6972 of
2022. The facts of the case in brief are that the Petitioner's
mother-Late Meena J. Patel, worked as an Upper Divisional Clerk
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
in the Union Territory Administration at the Government Industrial
Training Institute. The Petitioner's mother expired on
14/11/2016. Late Meena Patel had filed a nomination for death-
cum-retirement gratuity on 13/01/1999 under Rule 53(1) of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the 1972
Rules') as per Form 1.
3. Late Meena J. Patel had nominated the Petitioner to
succeed her for the death-cum-retirement gratuity. The
nomination was in favour of the Petitioner, but since he was 8
years old, she referred to the name of her father, J.N.Rohit, as a
second nominee as a guardian of the Petitioner. The entry was
accordingly taken in the service book of Late Meena J. Patel. After
the death of the Petitioner's father, the Petitioner's mother
remarried Mr. Prakash V. Bhavsar on 28/11/2012.
4. Since the Petitioner did not receive an amount from the
Respondent-Administration upon the death of his mother, the
Petitioner, on 17/10/2018 filed an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005, seeking details of the amount disbursed.
Respondent No.2 replied on 22/11/2018, where the Petitioner
found out that the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity was
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
disbursed to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar. The Petitioner made various
complaints to the Respondent No.2. Upon enquiry, it was revealed
that the office of Respondents No. 1 and 2 had disbursed the
amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar
erroneously. This Court vide its judgment and order dated
27/06/2024 observed that the nomination was duly made and it is
not in dispute that the Petitioner was entitled to receive the
amount as per nomination. In paragraphs 13 to 16, this Court
held thus :
" 13. Whether the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity due to
the Petitioner was given to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar by mistake or
collusion is not within the scope of this inquiry. Regardless of the
reason for the wrongful payment to Mr. Prakash Bhavsar, it should
not affect the Petitioner's entitlement to receive the death cum
retirement gratuity. The Petitioner's rights arose after the nomination
came into effect, and therefore the Petitioner was entitled to receive
the amount. While the inquiry and recovery for the wrongful
disbursement of the amount can proceed, it should not be connected
with the payment to the Petitioner. These two aspects should be
dealt with independently by the Respondents. The fact that the
nomination was duly made is not debated. It is also undisputed that
the Petitioner was entitled to receive the amount as per the
nomination.
14. In these circumstances, we hold that the amount of death-cum-
retirement gratuity due to the Petitioner upon the nomination
coming into effect was unjustly withheld by Respondent Nos. 1 and
2. Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to receive this amount
with interest.
15. Accordingly, we direct that Respondent No. 2 will, without
reference to the amounts paid to Prakash Bhavsar, calculate the
amounts due to the Petitioner as a nominee of the deceased
employee minus the amounts received by the Petitioner and pay the
same to the Petitioner within 8 weeks from the date the order is
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
uploaded, including interest, if any, payable under the applicable
rules.
16. As regards the recovery to be carried out against Prakash
Bhavsar, the same may be continued by Respondent No. 3 and the
money that is recovered by Respondent No. 3 can be deposited with
Respondent No. 2."
5. The Petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition
alleging the breach of the order of this Court. During the pendency
of the present Contempt Petition, it is not disputed that the
principal amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity has been paid
along with 6.25 % p.a. The grievance of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is entitled to the interest @
12% p.a. In order to substantiate his contentions, Mr. Walawalkar
relied upon Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules which reads thus :
"68. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity.-[(1) In all cases where
the payment of gratuity has been authorised later than the date
when its payment becomes due, including the cases of retirement
otherwise than on superannuation, and it is clearly established that
the delay in payment was attributable to administrative reasons or
lapses, interest shall be paid at the rate applicable to General
Provident Fund amount in accordance with the instructions issued
from time to time.
Provided that the delay in payment was not caused on account
of failure on the part of the Government servant to comply with the
procedure laid down by the Government for processing his pension
papers.]
(2) Every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by
the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry on the Department in
respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and
subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the
Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was
caused on account of [administrative reasons or lapse), the Secretary
of the Ministry or the Department shall sanction payment of interest.
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
(3) The Administrative Ministry of the Department shall be issue
Presidential sanction for the payment of interest after the Secretary
has sanctioned the payment of interest under sub-rule (2).
(4) In all cases where the payment of interest has been sanctioned by
the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department, such
Ministry or the Department shall fix the responsibility and take
disciplinary action against the Government servant or servants who
are found responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity (on
account of administrative lapses)"
6. Mr. Walawalkar has placed on record the manner in which
the calculation is made while quantifying the interest @ 6.25 %
from 2017 to 2018 and the interest rates considered by the
Respondents were as per prevailing bank interest rates for the year
2017-2018. Mr. Walawakar submitted that this was an error
committed by the Respondents in awarding interest @ 6.25 % p.a.
instead of 12% p.a. In support of his submissions, Mr. Walawalkar
relied upon the copy of the Office Memorandum dated
05/10/1999 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
& Pensions (Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare),
Government of India. Mr. Walawalkar invited our attention to
Clause 2 (d) of the said Office Memorandum which reads thus:
"In respect of delayed payment of gratuity wherever it results in
payment of penal interest at the rate applicable to GPF deposits (at
present 12% per annum compounded annually) under Rule 68 of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Secretary of the Administrative Ministry
or Department would initiate action to fix responsibility at all levels
to recover the amount from the concerned Dealing Official,
Supervisor and Head of Office in proportion to their salary by
following the prescribed procedures for the purpose. This should be
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
strictly enforced with immediate effect."
Relying on Clause 2(d), it is submitted that the Petitioner is
entitled to interest @ 12% p.a.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1
to 3. It is not in dispute that the principal amount along with
interest @ 6.25 % p.a. has been paid. Though the nomination was
in favour of the Petitioner, and the amount should have been paid
to the Petitioner, the Respondents proceeded to pay the said
amount wrongly to the another person. The aforesaid observations
of this Court while disposing of the Petition make it clear that this
Court had directed that as it is the fact that the amount had been
paid to the another person, since the nomination was in favour of
the Petitioner, it is the Petitioner who is entitled to receive the
amount along with interest as may be applicable. The Respondents
have accordingly awarded simple interest @ 6.25 % on the
delayed amount.
8. Mr. Walawalkar was at pains to point out that the present is
a case which clearly falls under Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules as delay
in payment was attributable to administrative lapse and hence, the
Petitioner's case is covered by the Office Memorandum dated
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
05/10/1999.
9. In our opinion, what this Court had held was that the
Petitioner is entitled to the principal amount along with interest as
may be applicable under the Rules. In the fact situation mentioned
before this Court, this Court had directed the payment of amount
to the Petitioner which was wrongly paid to the another person.
Learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3 urged that the
question whether this is administrative lapse may be debatable, as
the Respondents were under the bonafide impression that the
amount had to be paid to the another person instead of the
Petitioner. In any case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
Respondents that Clause 2 of Section 68 of the 1972 Rules clearly
mentions that every case of delayed payment of gratuity shall be
considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry on the
Department in respect of its employees and where the Secretary of
the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the
payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative
lapse, the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department shall
sanction payment of interest.
10. It is not possible for us to go behind the order passed by
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
this Court. There is no categoric finding that on account of
administrative lapse that the delay in payment of gratuity was
caused. It is seen that the gratuity amount was paid, but to a
wrong person. We find that there is substantial compliance of the
order passed by this Court.
11. In any case, it is open for the Petitioner to have his case
considered by the Secretary of Administrative Ministry under
Clause (2) of Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules. It is open for the
Petitioner to approach the competent authority for payment of
interest in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 05/10/1999 if
it is the case of the Petitioner that delay in payment of gratuity was
caused on account of administrative lapse. It is also open for the
Petitioner to resort to appropriate remedy in law claiming interest
@ 12.5 % p.a. It is however not possible for this Court in the
exercise of the contempt jurisdiction to grant relief to the
Petitioner as requested by learned counsel by awarding payment of
interest @ 12.5% p.a.
12. An objection is raised by learned counsel for the Petitioner
that despite specific orders of this Court, there has been delay on
the part of the Respondents in implementing the judgment and
Ingale 1-cp-65-25
order of this Court. Dr. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondents
No. 1 to 3 submitted that there was no intention on the part of the
Respondents to flout the orders of this Court and in fact, the orders
have been complied with. Dr. Jain on oral instructions of the
Respondent No. 2 tenders an unconditional apology and submits
that in any case within a period of 1 week from today, an affidavit
tendering unconditional apology will be placed on record.
13. Since there is substantial compliance of the order passed
by this Court, we do not proceed any further in this Contempt
Petition. The Contempt Petition is disposed of.
14. If the Petitioner makes a representation under Clause (2)
of Rule 68 of the 1972 Rules to the concerned Secretary within a
period of 4 weeks from today, it is requested that the such
representation be decided expeditiously and preferably within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation on
its own merits and in accordance with law.
15. The Contempt Petition is disposed of.
(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)
