Gujarat High Court
Kandarp Bhaskarrai Chhaya vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3982 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3982 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
KANDARP BHASKARRAI CHHAYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RASHESH A RINDANI(5380) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ROHAN N. SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,6,7
MR PRAKASH JANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, with SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for
the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 17/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
[1] Learned advocate Mr.Rashesh Rindani has
submitted that the only issue which remains to be
examined by this Court is payment of 10% interest
for the period of 31.10.2010 to 17.03.2020. He has
submitted that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2010
and was constrained to file proceedings for
claiming of the gratuity amount and ultimately he
was paid the amount on 17.03.2020. In support of
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
his submission, he has placed reliance on the order
dated 11.02.2020 passed by this Court in Special
Civil Application No. 21281 of 2019. He has
submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied the
interest of 10%, as ordered by the Controlling
Authority.
[2] In response to the aforesaid submissions,
learned Senior Advocate Mr.Prakash Jani appearing
for the respondent nos.4 and 5 has submitted that
the Controlling Authority has fixed the liability
of payment of 10% on all the respondents, including
the State also. He has submitted that in fact the
entire burden cannot be shifted on the respondent-
College as it is 100% grant-in-aid, and since the
State has not paid the grant, they may not be
fastened with the payment of 10% interest. Learned
Senior Advocate Mr.Jani has further submitted that
the entire amount, as ordered by the Controlling
Authority in fact is paid to the petitioner by the
respondent-College.
[3] Learned AGP Mr.Rohan Shah has submitted that
in fact it would be the liability of the
respondent-College to pay 10% interest. He has
submitted that the respondent-State had also time
and again issued communications to the respondent-
College to pay the amount of gratuity, however the
same was not paid.
[4] Thus, the aforesaid submissions canvassed by
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties would suggest that both the respondents are
shifting the burden on each other for the payment
of interest of 10% gratuity amount.
[5] Heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
[6] The Controlling Authority by an order dated
28.04.2016, has determined the gratuity of
Rs.9,46,343/-, which was to be paid to the
petitioner with 10% interest. The Controlling
Authority has fixed the liability on all the
respondents, including the State Government and
college authority.
[7] Thereafter, the recovery certificate was also
issued, which was not implemented and hence, the
petitioner was constrained to file the captioned
writ petition before this Court. During the
pendency of this petition, the petitioner is paid
an amount of Rs.9,46,343/- on 17.03.2020, however
the interest amount is yet to be paid. The
petitioner was working as a Lecturer in respondent
no.4 i.e. Homeopathy College and Research Institute
and was appointed on 01.08.1981 and on attaining
the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010, he retired
from service with the hope that his gratuity amount
will be paid immediately. Since nothing was done by
the respondent-College as well as the State
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
authority, he was constrained to approach the
Controlling Authority claiming his rightful amount
of the gratuity. Even after the Controlling
Authority ordered in his favour and the recovery
certificate dated 19.01.2017 was issued and the
State did not implement and the petitioner has
remained without his gratuity amount. The
petitioner as on today is 67 years of age and only
after he has filed the writ petition in the year
2020, the gratuity amount has been released. Today,
now when the gratuity amount is released, the
respondents are inter se disputing with regard to
the payment of interest on such gratuity amount.
[8] This reveals the sorry state of affairs
between the Institute in which the petitioner was
serving and the State authority. The petitioner,
who has honestly rendered his service for 29 years,
is waiting to enjoy the fruits of his service.
After rendering his services honestly without there
being any accusation on the part of the respondent-
College, he was constrained to approach the
Controlling Authority claiming his gratuity amount.
It was expected from the respondents to immediately
pay the gratuity to the petitioner soon after his
retirement so that he can utilize the same for his
retirement.
[9] In the order dated 11.02.2020 passed in
Special Civil Application No.21281 of 2019, the
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
Coordinate Bench has referred to the Government
Resolution dated 25.02.2005, which has been issued
pursuant to the directions issued in P.I.L Special
Civil Application No.3954 of 2001. The Court has
referred to the procedure prescribed in the
Government Resolution dated 25.02.2005 for quick
implementation of the recovery certificates. It
appears that there is absolute breach of conditions
stipulated in the said Resolution. One of the
conditions is that "any lackadaisical approach on
the part of any officer/employee or deliberate
attempt not to act shall be reported in their
confidential report". It is also stated that the
"Officers of the District Collector, D.D.O & T.D.O
shall have quarterly accounts of proceeding of
recovery certificate". The Coordinate Bench, after
referring to the provisions of the Government
Resolution dated 25.02.2005 has observed thus:
"6. These are thus, very eloquent and specific guidelines,
directions in the form of mandates, pursuant to the PIL.
preferred before this Court. However, they are observed often
in their breach and that is essentially due to absence of any
supervision or administrative guidance on the part of senior
officer.
7. The State has also directed to the officers who are to at
the helm of affair to supervise and it seems that what is
lacking is the execution and lack of proper administration and
desired guidance.
8. It is more often than not experienced that Mamlatdar is
assigned the task of recovery without anyone, then following
the same up, resultantly into piling of the matters as well as
miseries of the creditor workmen..........."
[10] It appears that the State authorities are
ignorant of their own Resolution. As the facts
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
narrated hereinabove suggest that the petitioner
retired on 31.10.2010. The writ petition is filed
in the year 2020 for seeking a direction against
the respondent no.1 to recover the amount as per
the recovery certificate dated 19.01.2017. The
order of the Controlling Authority was supposed to
be implemented in 30 days. These facts are very
gross and shocking. The approach of all the
respondents is required to be highly condemned. A
retired employee cannot be forced to knock the
doors of the Courts of law for claiming his legal
retiral benefits, which he is entitled to receive
soon after his retirement. The entitlement of the
gratuity amount was never disputed. The State and
the Institution should have ironed out all their
differences before the retirement of the
petitioner. Since no such exercise was undertaken,
the petitioner was compelled to get himself
embroiled in legal skirmish. Such litigation incurs
expenses and consumes time, and are an ordeal on
senior citizens. Moreover, the authorities are
saddled with interest and costs which is a burden
on public exchequer. It is the constitutional
obligation on the State Government to see that the
employees of such institutions are paid their
retirement benefits at the time of their retirement
and they are not constrained to knock the doors of
the Courts of law for claiming their legal dues.
All the predicament and difference of opinion
should be resolved before the retirement of an
C/SCA/3982/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2021
employee. The State authority is directed to issue
appropriate instructions to all such institutions
clarifying its stand so that a retired employee is
not made to undergo the ordeal for claiming his
gratuity or other benefits after his retirement.
[11] In light of the aforesaid insensitive approach
of the respondents, an exemplary cost of
Rs.10,000/- is imposed jointly on the State
authority and the respondent-College. Each shall
pay Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. It is directed
that the amount of interest @ 10% for the period of
31.10.2010 to 17.03.2010 along with Rs.10,000/-
cost shall be paid to the petitioner within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a
writ of this order. It is further directed that if
such order is not complied with, it will be open
for the petitioner to revive this petition by
filing a simple note before the Registry.
[12] With the aforesaid directions, the civil
application as well as the writ petition is
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA
