Gujarat High Court
Natvarlal Maganlal Patel Since ... vs Kapadwanj Taluka Panchayat on 6 July, 2021
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/LPA/383/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 383 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15020 of 2005
==========================================================
NATVARLAL MAGANLAL PATEL SINCE DECD.THROUGH LEGLAL HEIRS
& 3 other(s)
Versus
KAPADWANJ TALUKA PANCHAYAT & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VA MANSURI(2880) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 06/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. We have heard Mr. V.M. Mansuri, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants; Mr. Munshaw, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents nos.1 and 2 respectively and Mr.
Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents nos.4
and 5 respectively.
2. We take notice of the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of
this Court dated 28.06.2018 in the contempt proceedings initiated
by the appellants herein by way of a Misc. Civil Application
C/LPA/383/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021
No.2944 of 2017. The order dated 28.06.2018 reads thus:-
"1. This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the
respondents have violated the directions issued in the
judgment dated 21.12.2016, passed in Special Civil Application
No.15020 of 2005.
2. The applicant herein was originally appointed as Work-
charge Engine Operator at Badarpur, Taluka Kapadvanj on
16.09.1968. The appointment of the applicant was initially in
the Panchayat. Thereafter, his services were transferred to
Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation.
3. The grievance in the petition was for fixation of pension
payable to the petitioner. By the aforesaid judgment, the
petition was allowed by declaring him entitled to the pension
from the respondent Panchayat. The communication dated
29.08.2000 was quashed and the respondents were directed to
undertake the exercise of fixing the pension of the petitioner
and necessary payments be made within a period of four
months from the date of the receipt of the judgment.
4. In this application, separate affidavit-in-replies are filed by
respondent Nos.1 and 3.
5. In the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is stated
that the applicant has completed qualifying service for pension
from the Panchayat but not from the Corporation. It is further
stated that the petitioner retired from the Corporation in the
year 1984. Upon his retirement, as per the scheme which was
in force in the Corporation i.e. Contributory Provident Fund,
the applicant was paid all dues. Respondent No.1 has also
placed on record the proceedings dated 03.02.2018 issued by
the Pension and Provident Fund Office fixing the pension
payable to the applicant for the services rendered by him in
the Panchayat. A perusal of the proceedings dated 03.02.2018
makes it clear that as the applicant served upto 14.10.1981
from the date of his initial appointment, such service is
counted for the purpose of pension. It is not in dispute that
towards the arrears, am amount of Rs.4,03,678/- is already
paid.
6. As much as services rendered by the applicant in the
Corporation is not pensionable service and as the pension order
C/LPA/383/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021
is already issued by the respondent fixing the pension, we are
of the view that this is not a fit case to proceed further under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of, directing the
respondents to regularly pay the pension as per the pension
order issued by the authorities. If any arrear towards pension
is payable, such amount shall also be paid to the applicant, as
expeditiously as possible."
3. The co-ordinate bench while disposing of the contempt
application recorded in its order referred to above that the pension
order has already been issued by the competent authority fixing the
pension. The application came to be disposed of directing the
respondents to regularly pay the pension in accordance with the
pension order issued by the authorities referred to above. The
contempt bench also clarified that if any arrears towards pension is
payable, then such amount shall also be paid to the appellants
herein.
4. In the present appeal, the only issue that falls for our
consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to receive
interest on the delayed payment of the pension. It is very
unfortunate to note that the interest is something, which is still a
distant dream because the appellants have not even started
receiving the pension amount till this date. We are informed that
the order of pension is of February, 2018. The contempt
proceedings came to an end in June, 2019. However, till this date,
the widow of Natvarlal Patel namely Fuliben has not received a
single penny towards pension.
5. We request Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP to look into
the matter at the earliest and try to inquire why the pension is not
C/LPA/383/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2021
being paid despite the fact that the order of pension came to be
passed in the year 2018.
Post this matter on 13.07.2018 at Sr.No.1 on the board.
6. One copy of this order shall be furnished to Mr. Chintan
Dave, the learned AGP at the earliest for its onward
communication.
Once Fuliben starts receiving the pension every month with
arrears accumulated till this date, we shall, thereafter, adjudicate
the claim of the appellants for interest on the delayed payment of
pension.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J)
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
