Gujarat High Court
Kanchanben Wd/O Pramodrai ... vs Director Of Pension And Provident ... on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 795 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10631 of 2021
==========================================================
KANCHANBEN WD/O PRAMODRAI TRIVEDI
Versus
DIRECTOR OF PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAIMIN A GANDHI(8065) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in SCA no. 10631 of 2021, the
original petitioner has preferred this appeal only on
the ground that the learned Single Judge has not
followed the earlier judgment of this Court in SCA
No. 21887 of 2016, wherein for similarly situated
Doctor, on account of late payment, interest is
granted.
2. Heard Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned advocate for
the appellant, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for
respondents no.3 and 4 and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi,
learned AGP for State Government and its
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
authorities. As the only issue is regarding the
interest, the matter is taken up for final disposal
with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, it clearly emerges that the predecessor
of the present appellant, i.e., late Dr.Pramodrai
Trivedi was working as Doctor along with one Dr.
Hemantkumar Jaswantray Bhatt. The record indicates
that the appellant herein approached this Court by
way of filing writ petition being SCA No.4644 of 2017
for the benefits of pension, Provident Fund,
gratuity, leave encashment and the revision of 6th
Pay Commission. The learned Single Judge of this
court while disposing of the said writ petition,
provided as under -
"5. In the above light, the present petition
would witness the following order:
(i) It will be open for the petitioner to make
application to the newly added party Director of
Pension and Provident Fund, seeking details of
the amount of retirement benefits paid to the
petitioner and ask for calculation of the said
amount.
(ii) If such application is made within two
weeks from today, the Office of the Director of
Pension and Provident Fund shall furnish the
necessary details to the petitioner within
further two weeks from the date of receipt of
the application.
(iii) If the petitioner finds any calculation
error that further amount is due according to
him, he may revert back to respondent nos.3 and
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
5 as well as the Office of the Director of
Pension and Provident Fund.
(iv) All the authorities shall co-ordinate
themselves to look into the grievance of the
petitioner. (v) The necessary decision shall be
taken within further period of two weeks."
The dues were paid to the appellant who happens to be
the wife of deceased Dr. Pramodrai Vasudev Trivedi.
However, as the interest was not paid, the writ
petition being SCA No. 10631 of 2021 is filed wherein
it is inter alia prayed as under -
"(A) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
allow the present petition and be pleased to
direct the respondents to pay interest at 12% on
delayed payment of service and retirement dues
of the husband of the petitioner.
(B) That Hon'ble Court may be pleased to impose
exemplary cost upon the respondents and
compensation the petitioner towards expenses for
this proceeding."
The learned Single Judge did not grant any interest
and has observed thus -
"6. Considering the above submission, it appears
that the facts of the case of the petitioner are
different from the petitioner, Mr. Hemantkumar
Jaswantray Bhatt, in Special Civil Application
No. 21887 of 2016, who was granted interest at
the rate of 9% on the amount, which was paid
after the period of six months from the date of
the Resolution dated 22.07.2015.
6.1 In the facts of the present, the husband of
the petitioner expired on 05.06.2016, and
thereafter, necessary papers were forwarded by
the Respondent-Authority to the concerned
department for sanction of pension and pension
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
which was sanctioned in the month of October,
2017, and thereafter, the petitioner was paid
all the dues with regard to the arrears of
pension, gratuity etc., whereas, the amount of
Rs.20,62,098/- was paid in the month of January
and February, 2016 and the remaining amount was
paid as and when such amount was sanctioned by the
Respondent-Authority and hence there is no delay in
paying such amount, after the sanction is given by
the Respondent-Authority, and therefore, the
petitioner, in the facts of this case, is not
entitled to the interest as is claimed in this
petition, more particularly, when the petitioner did
not press for the same, when Special Civil
Application No. 4644 of 2017 was heard and disposed
of by this Court in the year 2019. It is also
apparent that the petitioner had received entire
payment towards retirement dues of her late husband
prior to disposal of the said petition.
6.2 So far as the submission made by the learned
Advocate, Mr. Gandhi, that the petitioner was not
provided with the Statement of Calculations is
concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
had received all the dues towards retirement
benefits of her late husband even prior to the
disposal of Special Civil Application No. 4644 of
2017 on 31.01.2019. It is also not stated anywhere
in this petition that the petitioner had made an
application pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2019
passed by this Court for getting the Statement of
Calculation of the amount towards retiral dues, as
permitted by this Court. Therefore, there is no
delay in payment of the amount to the petitioner
with respect to the retiral dues of her late
husband."
The said aspect is the basis and backbone of the
challenge in this appeal.
4. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently submitted that the services of
the predecessor of the husband of the appellant and
that of Dr. Hemantkumar Bhatt were regularised by one
order dated 22.07.2015 and the payments have been
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
made on the same dates and the learned Single Judge
in the case of Dr. Hemantkumar Bhatt was pleased to
provide for interest whereas in the case of the
husband of the appellant, it has been denied.
5. Mr. Gandhi also undertook the exercise of
bringing to the notice of this Court the exact dates
on which such payment were made and contended that
similar treatment should be given in the case of Dr.
Pramodrai Trivedi, husband of the appellant.
6. As against this, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned
advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon
the affidavit-in-reply filed in this appeal and
contended that the amount due and payable, total
amounting to Rs.55,55,833/- have been released on
different dates and therefore, the appeal deserves to
be dismissed. According to Mr. Munshaw, interest is
not a matter of right but discretion of the Court and
the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the
discretion and has arrived at a finding of fact that
actually there was no delay and therefore, no
interest is payable.
7. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP has reiterated
the arguments made by Mr. Munshaw for the respondents
and has opposed the appeal.
8. No other or further submissions or grounds have
been raised by the learned advocates appearing for
the respective parties.
9. It is an admitted position that Dr.Pramodrai
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
Trivedi, the predecessor of the appellant and Dr.
Hemantkumar Bhatt were on the same post as Ayurvedic
Doctors and the benefits which were given were by one
order dated 22.07.2015 to both the Doctors. As the
factual matrix stands as on date, Dr. Hemantkumar
Bhatt approached this Court by filing Writ Petition
being SCA No. 9638/04 claiming benefits which are now
granted to them mainly on the ground that similarly
situated employees have been granted such benefits
and the writ petition has been dismissed vide order
dated 15.03.2010, which was challenged further by the
said appellant by way of filing LPA No.1637 of 2010,
which came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 08.10.2014 whereby the
coordinate bench of this Court was pleased to issue
direction to the respondents authorities to pass
appropriate order at the earliest preferably within a
period of four months granting benefit of absorption
to the Doctor, i.e., Dr. Hemantkumar Bhatt, which was
granted to other 21 Ayurvedic Doctors who were
considered for regularisation vide order dated
03.01.1992. As the record unfolds, even the said
directions were not complied with by the respondents
and contempt application being Misc. Civil
Application No. 1462 of 2015 was filed before this
Court by Dr. Hemantkumar Bhatt which came to be
disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2015 on the ground
that respondent authorities have already passed a
resolution dated 22.07.2015. It is that order of
regularisation and giving benefits, which is the
backbone of this appeal also. The predecessor of the
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
appellant was thus entitled to regularisation from
1992 onwards and was entitled to difference of pay
arrears from 23.01.2018 to 22.06.2018, gratuity,
pension arrears from 01.10.2007 onwards as the
predecessor of the appellant had attained the age of
super annuation, leave encashment and the benefit and
effect of 6th pay commission. Even as admitted by
the Respondent Panchayat authorities, Dr. Pramodrai
Vasudev Trivedi, the predecessor of the appellant was
paid the amount as per the order dated 22.07.2015 as
under -
Sr. Date of Amount Particulars
No. Receipt (Rs.)
1. 18.01.2016 20,62,098/- Pay Arrears
2. 18.02.2016
3. 23.01.2018 2,35,098/- Difference of pay
4. 28.03.2018 arrears from
23.01.2018 to
28.03.2018
5. 12.12.2017 2,33,376/- Gratuity
6. 19.01.2018 15,53,143/- Pension Arrears from
01.10.2007 to
31.01.2018
7. 23.01.2018 2,88,986/- Leave Encashment
28.03.2018
8. 14.03.2018 11,83,132/- Six Pay Revision
(Pension Case)
Total 55,55,833/-
10. Thus, the benefits of regularisation was granted
after about 23 years and even after passing of the
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
order dated 22.07.2015, the payment of difference of
pay arrears was made in the month of January and
March 2018, Gratuity on 12.12.2017, pension arrears
from 2007 onwards on 19.01.2018, leave encashment on
23.01.2018 and 28.03.2018 and the effect of 6th pay
revision as pension case on 14.03.2018. Thus,
practically the order of regularisation dated
22.07.2015 was implemented in installments after more
than one year. Even if we consider that the pay
arrears of 20,62,098/- was paid within a period of
six months from the date of the order of
regularisation, the fact remains that the other due
which was payable which was within the knowledge of
all authorities including the State Government was
paid after more than one year and two years as noted
hereinabove. There cannot be any explanation for
such delay, except administrative reasons. The
entitlement of pension is not a bounty, that too to a
widow of a Doctor who has put in services of more
than 3 decades.
11. In light of the aforesaid facts, which reveal
late payment of the dues to the appellant in such a
manner that during the lifetime of the predecessor of
the appellant, he could not even see the light of his
entitlement, in opinion of this Court, even while
exercising discretion of awarding interest, this
Court finds that the appellant is entitled to some
interest. The respondents are also Government
authorities and ultimately, the interest burden would
be on the public exchequer. Keeping that in mind,
while exercising discretion in granting interest, we
C/LPA/795/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2022
we deem it fit in facts of this case, to grant
lumpsum amount as interest segment. In the peculiar
facts facts of this case, we quantify the same at
Rs.51,000/-. Such amount shall be paid by the
concerned authority within a period of one month from
today, failing which, the same shall carry interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. till its realisation. The
appeal is disposed of. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
