Gujarat High Court
Managing Trustee- Vidyabhavan ... vs Natvarlal Udayshankar Rajguru on 2 December, 2021
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1036 of 2018
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11741 of 2007
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2018
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1036 of 2018
==========================================================
MANAGING TRUSTEE- VIDYABHAVAN TRUST NAVGUJARAT ARTS AND
& 1 other(s)
Versus
NATVARLAL UDAYSHANKAR RAJGURU & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.AVNI H PANDYA(7257) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MANAN MEHTA, AGP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR BHASKAR TANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE for TANNA
ASSOCIATES(1410) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 02/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the
appellant Shri Vidyabhavan Trust, Ahmedabad addressing its
grievance against the judgment and order of learned Single
Judge dated 6.4.2018 passed in the Special Civil Application.
2. The appellant had filed Special Civil Application against
the judgment and order of Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services
Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Application No.32 of 2002. The said
application was by one Natvarlal Udayshankar Rajguru, since
deceased, now representated by his heirs and legal
representatives.
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
3. What was prayed before the Tribunal was for direction
against the authorities to pay the interest on the amount paid to
the applicant towards revised pension, gratuity and other
benefits. According to the case of the applicant, the said
amounts were paid belatedly entitling him the interest thereon.
3.1 The application was allowed by the Tribunal passing the
following operative directions.
"So, in view of above, the application of the applicant
is allowed and I hereby give direction to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the amount of
interest at the rate of 9% and also to pay remaining
amount, if any is due to the applicant within four
weeks after the receipt of this order."
3.2 Learned Single Judge while dismissing the Special Civil
Application, confirmed the order of Tribunal to provide and
direct thus,
"In view of the aforementioned circumstances , this
petition is dismissed with the directions to the
petitioners as well as respondents No.2 to 4 to
comply with the order of the Tribunal within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. However, it goes without saying
that the original petitioner shall be entitled to the
interest awarded by the Tribunal till the dues are
actually paid to him. Rule is discharged."
3.3 It appears that main plank of challenge by the appellant
Trust was that the Trust could not have been fasten with the
liability to pay the interest. In course of the proceedings of the
Letters Patent Appeal, at one stage, this Court passed order
dated 29.4.2019 as under.
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
the case, though disputed by learned advocate for
the respondent, an amount of Rs.1,77,294/- as
computed by the appellants towards 9% interest, as
directed by the learned Single Judge, be paid to the
respondent on or before 07.05.2019. "
3.4 The said order was subjected to speaking-to-minutes and
the corrected order dated 6.5.2019 reads thus.
"Note for speaking to minutes is allowed and order
dated 29.4.2019 is now to be read as :
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, though disputed by learned advocate for
the respondent, an amount of Rs.1,77,294/- as
computed by the State Government towards 9%
interest, as directed by the learned Single Judge, be
paid to the respondent on or before 07.05.2019.
For further order, adjourned to 19.07.2019."
3.5 As per further order passed on 8.8.2019, the Court noted
to observe that amount of Rs.1,77,294/- with 9% interest as
calculated by the authorities is paid to the respondents in view
of computation put forth by the respondents in the affidavit-in-
rejoinder dated 25.4.2019. The computation amount of interest
as reflected alongwith the affidavit in the tabular form (Page 53
of the compilation) is thus.
"Shri M.V.Rajguru
Interest Calculation Sheet
Amount Deduction [email protected]
Date Period 9%
1 Difference of Rs.31,000/- 12.3.2001 31 7208
pay months
2 Difference of Rs.53,432/- 4.5.2001 32 12824
leave months
encashment
3 Revised Rs.2,48,347/- 21.3.2002 43 80092
Commu. months
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
Pension
4 Revised Rs.1,39,880/- 21.3.2002 43 45111
Commu. months
Pension
5 Difference of Rs.76,618/- 2.4.2002 43 24709
pension months
6 Withheld Rs.10,000/- July 2004 98 7350
Graduaty months
(Rs.One Lac Seventy seven Thousand two Total Rs 1,77,294/-
hundred ninety Four only)
Interest calculated from 7th September 1998 to Payment Date"
3.6 It requires to be further noted and observed that in the
affidavit-in-reply filed in response to this Appeal on behalf of the
respondent No.2- the Deputy Director, (Accounts) Commissioner
of Higher Education, following averments are made on oath in
connection with the claim of the payment of interest.
".....the Fifth Pay resolution was introduced vide the
Government resolution dated 7 September, 1998
which was made effective from 1st January, 1996."
"In the case of the Original applicant, respondent
No. 1 herein, the difference of pay comes to around
Rs.31,000/- which was paid on 12th March 2001.
Thus, there was delay of 31 months in actual
payment of salary difference and accordingly as per
the direction of the tribunal the interest at the rate
of 9 percent comes to around Rs.7,208/-. I therefore
deny that the salary difference was paid late by four
years as claimed by the petitioner."
3.7 Further stand taken by respondent No.2 in respect of the
calculation of the interest is as under, extracted from paragraph
No.5.7 of the affidavit.
"So far as the claim made by the petitioner on
overall calculation of interest @9% for 9 years which
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
is calculated from April 1996 to April 2005 for the
interest on the interest is concerned, I strongly deny
the same. It may kindly be appreciated that there is
no provision for payment of interest on delayed
payment of interest as claimed by the petitioner. It
may further be noted that all the principle amounts
have been paid in the year 2001-02 and as calculated
above the interest on such delayed payment of
principle amount comes to the total of
Rs.1,77,294/-."
4. Learned advocate Mr.Mitul Shelat for the appellant Trust
could not dispute the above developments and the effect thereof.
4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Bhaskar Tanna for the
respondents, however in course of the consideration of the
appeal, vehemently submitted that the calculation of interest by
the authorities needs to be revised as the respondents- heirs of
the original applicants Employee would be entitled to interest
from 1.1.1996 which is the date of bringing into force
government resolution dated 7.9.1988 whereby the 5 th Pay
Commission benefits were introduced. He submitted that the
amount of interest of Rs.1,77,294/- paid to the respondents and
received by them do not represent the correct amount payable
as it is not calculated from 1.1.1996.
5. The present appeal is by the appellant Trust and not at the
instance of the respondents who, as above now want to dispute
the calculation of the interest and have been pressing for their
entitlement of interest to be calculated in light of the abovesaid
directions of the Tribunal and learned Single Judge.
5.1 The developments, more particularly, the payment of
amount of Rs.1,77,294/- towards interest to the heirs of the
original applicant as per the above orders put to rest the cause
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
of action for the appellant Trust to prosecute the present appeal.
The order of payment of interest is acted upon in the aforesaid
way, and since nothing is to be gone into on merits.
5.2 We do not see any reason to disturb the impugned order of
learned Single Judge. It stands as complied with to the aforesaid
extent and manner. The orders impugned in this appeal have not
been disturbed by us in view of the developments recorded
above, however, the impugned orders of learned Single Judge
shall stand modified in respect of the liability to pay which has
been taken upon by the State Government as per the orders
earlier passed.
6. We are afraid that in the present appeal we cannot grant
any relief to the respondents. We cannot consider the grievance
of the respondents that interest is wrongly calculated, nor can
enter into the merits of this grievance. However, to the fairness
of the Court proceedings, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Manan Mehta stated on instructions from the competent
officer that if the private respondents approaches the competent
authority with a request-cum-representation for recalculation of
the amount of interest, the authorities shall look into it on merits
positively and also by keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
6.1 In view of the fair statement by learned Assistant
Government Pleader as above, we reserve liberty for the
respondents to approach the State authorities accordingly for
the said limited purpose about correct date of calculation of
interest. If such representation is made, the same shall be
attended to expeditiously to be finally responded within eight
C/LPA/1036/2018 ORDER DATED: 02/12/2021
weeks.
6.2 The respondents are also at liberty to take recourse to
other proceedings including contempt of Court if they are of the
view that the directions of the Tribunal and that of learned
Single Judge are not fully complied with.
6.3 If in the processing of the representation of the
respondents by the State authorities, any procedural assistance
is needed from the appellant, learned advocate for the appellant
fairly asserts the Court in that regard.
7. The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of subject to above.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION
In view of disposal of the main appeal, the present Civil
Application will not survive. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
Manshi
