Latikaben Ramanlal Naik Through ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 17679 Guj

      C/LPA/764/2021                              ORDER DATED: 24/11/2021



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 764 of 2021
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7171 of 2021
==========================================================
LATIKABEN RAMANLAL NAIK THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY-POA
              HOLDER SNEHAL RAMANLAL NAIK
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,6
MS URMILA DESAI, AGP for the Respondent State
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,5
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H.VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                              Date : 24/11/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE)

1. Present LPA is impugning the order dated 5.7.2021 passed in SCA No.7171 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts leading to present LPA are as follows:-

2.1 That the appellant is the wife of one Ramanlal Dhirajlal Naik, who was serving in J.F. Sarvajanik Middle School, which is run and established, managed, administered and financed by respondent No.4 - Pardi Education Society, which is a registered Public Trust. The said school is a grant-in-aid school and receives government grants from the Government of Gujarat. Said Ramanlal Dhirajlal Naik passed away in the year 2000.

2.2 The appellant herein states that in the month of February 2021, she came to know that despite relevant rules and resolutions published by the concerned State Government authorities under which the deceased husband of the appellant

C/LPA/764/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2021

was very much eligible and entitled to receive three higher pay scales and pension, the same was not granted to him. That since the appellant came to know that other similarly situated teachers of the same school were granted the benefits of Higher Pay Scale Scheme and the pension, she made a representation dated 22.2.2021 to the respondent - school authorities, which came to be turned down. That again, she submitted a communication dated 22.3.2021 with clarifications, which has remained unanswered by the concerned authority.

3. Aggrieved the appellant filed SCA No.7171 of 2021 praying for the following reliefs:-

"A. Be pleased to allow the petition.

B. Be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for releasing the benefits of three higher pay scales for the deceased husband of the petitioner on the basis of GR dated 05/07/1991 and 16/08/1994 and the same may kindly be ordered to be released from the respective dates and the arrears pursuant to the grant of these higher scales may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest of 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment.

C. Be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders for releasing pension for the deceased husband of the petitioner i.e. for Ramanlal Dhirajlal Naik for a period from 01/12/1993 and onwards up to 05/05/2000 and the respondents may kindly be directed to release the pension for the deceased husband of the petitioner for the aforesaid time period and the same may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest of 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment.

D. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the family pension to the petitioner from 06/05/2000 and onwards and the respondent may kindly be directed to pay family pension to the petitioner and arrears for the period between 05/05/2000 and onwards may kindly be ordered to be paid with interest of 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment.

E. Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and

C/LPA/764/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2021

be pleased to direct the respondent government authority to consider and decide the representation dated 15/02/2021 and 15/03/2021 and be pleased to quash and set aside the decision taken by the respondent school authorities dated 12/03/2021.

F. By way of interim order direct the respondent authority to release the family pension to the petition till the final disposal of the main petition."

4. The learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 5.7.2021 disposed of SCA No.7163 of 2021 along with SCA No.7171 of 2021. By the said order, the learned Single Judge rejected the prayers of the appellant herein observing that during the lifetime of the husband of the appellant herein, he never made any application in regard to grant of higher pay scales. It was further observed that though the pension and retirement benefits are not to be treated as bounty, as it is the right of the employee to be able to sustain himself after retirement and after having rendered satisfactory service for a long period. But in the present case, the wife of the deceased employee, who has expired in the year 2000, is trying to claim the higher pay scale, which would assume a shape of bounty for the appellant and that the basic philosophy for providing pensionary benefits would be frustrated. Further, in para 8, the learned Single Judge has observed as follows:-

"The Court observes a trend now prevailing in claim to retirement benefits and monetary benefits due to entitlement to higher pay scale. These claims are not made immediately upon retirement or entitlement but after passage of long period such claims are staked and once stake is made, immediately the concerned authorities show enthusiasm to clear stale claim regardless of the fact that there already is piled up claim at the recent period which does not get attention of these authorities. Pretty the same trend is observed in long standing land dispute cloggal in the authorities system but when some third party shows interest, things move at a quicker pace and clearance pass through green channel. Such method and practice is not only harmful to the system at large as it encourages corruption but frustrates the very object of providing retirement benefit to the employee. The Court cannot be party to such attempt and

C/LPA/764/2021 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2021

strongly deprecates it."

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein filed the present LPA.

5. We have heard the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.

6. It would be pertinent to note that the learned Advocate appearing in both the SCAs and the connected LPA has instructions to withdraw connected LPA No.1022 of 2021 and the said LPA has been dismissed as withdrawn. However, despite the observations made in para 8 by the learned Single Judge, present appellant herein persists in prosecuting present LPA. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The concerned authorities have rightly not entertained the application preferred by the appellant herein. Thus, it seems that present LPA arising out of SCA No.7171 of 2021 is nothing but another attempt to receive ineligible bounty after a period of 21 years after the death of the deceased employee, who never claimed such benefits during his lifetime. Such an action on the part of the appellant herein is strongly deprecated by this Court.

7. In the result, the LPA is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant herein and also on the merits with cost of Rs.15,000/-, which is directed to be deposited to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Notice discharged.

(S.H.VORA, J)

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE