Gujarat High Court
Pravinbhai Shantilal Ranbhan vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/15663/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15663 of 2019
==========================================================
PRAVINBHAI SHANTILAL RANBHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 12/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma,
learned AGP appearing for the respondents waives
service of notice of Rule.
2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the prayer is
that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to
make payment of interest on delayed payment of
retirement dues to the petitioner.
3. Facts in brief would indicate that having joined
service as a Junior clerk in the year 1972, the petitioner
C/SCA/15663/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
was promoted and posted as Commercial Tax Officer in
the year 2007. It is his case that he had rendered 37
years of blotless service. The petitioner was due to retire
on superannuation on 31.08.2010. Five months before
the date of retirement, a penalty of removal from service
was imposed by order dated 03.03.2010. That order of
removal was challenged by the petitioner by way of
Special Civil Application No. 9593 of 2010 and 7 years
thereafter this court vide judgement and order dated
16.11.2017 allowed the petition.
4. Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner would submit that it is apparent from the
observations made in the judgment and order dated
16.11.2017, while allowing the petition, that the court
had opined that the service career of the petitioner was
blotless and the order of removal was passed shortly
before the petitioner was to reach the age of
superannuation on 31.08.2010. The court observed
"Indubitably, the impugned order of punishment
C/SCA/15663/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
removing the petitioner from service wiping out his entire
37 years of blotless service can be said to be
disproportionate to the misconduct." Accordingly, the
court directed that the period from the date of impugned
order of removal till the date of superannuation be
treated as notional for all purposes of pension.
3.1 Mr. Vyas would submit that ultimately only when a
contempt petition was filed namely Misc. Civil Application
No. 416 of 2018 that terminal benefits such as arrears of
pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension and leave
encashment etc. were released on 07.04.2018 and
27.04.2018. But for the contempt petition, the dues of
over more than 30 lakhs were retained for over a period
of six months.
4. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP appearing for the
respondents would draw the court's attention to the
paragraphs in the judgement with regard to the conduct
of the petitioner.
C/SCA/15663/2019 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2022
5. What needs to be appreciated is that though the
petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 31.08.2010,
he was removed from service on 03.03.2010. True it is
that in a petition filed before this court which remained
pending for a period of seven years, the court ultimately
did, by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2017, set
aside the order of removal observing that the career of
the petitioner which had 37 years of blotless service
record was wiped out as a result of removal, the terminal
benefits could have only been paid after the final order of
this court which was passed on 16.11.2017. Six months'
delay in the opinion of this court is not unreasonable
enough so as to warrant payment of interest on delayed
payment of pension.
6. In view of the above, finding no merit in the petition,
the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
DIVYA
