Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer Tapi ... vs Kailashben Widow Of Ghelabhai ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: N.V.Anjaria
Bench: N.V.Anjaria
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8743 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Sd-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Sd-
==================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to Yes
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
==================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TAPI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT
Versus
KAILASHBEN WIDOW OF GHELABHAI RANCHODJI DESAI
==================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR.SANJAY UDHAWANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Page 1 of 8
Downloaded on : Fri Feb 02 21:09:16 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
Date : 24/01/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)
The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent is filed by the Tapi District Panchayat - original
respondent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.08.2023 in Special
Civil Application No.8743 of 2016.
[2] The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge was to direct the respondent - present appellant to
give 18% interest on the retirement benefits to the respondent -
original petitioner from 30.10.2004 till the actual date of
payment which was 10.11.2015.
[3] Learned Single Judge held that the respondent No.1 -
original petitioner was entitled to receive interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date on which the inquiry against the
husband of the petitioner was dropped i.e. on 30.10.2004 till the
actual payment of retirement benefits have been made on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
10.11.2015. Further it was directed that if such payment was
not made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, the respondent No.1 - original petitioner would be
entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is this
direction which are challenged in the present Letters Patent
Appeal.
[4] The background of the facts which has led writ petition
before the Court is that the husband of present respondent -
original petitioner was working as Talati-cum-Mantri under the
District Panchayat at Tapi. Her husband was retired after
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1986 after
completing more than 33 years of service and was entitled for
100% retirement dues. A criminal case was filed against him
being Criminal Case No.1282 of 1985 in which he was acquitted
by judgment and order dated 11.03.1988. Petitioner's husband
has died on 11.01.2004 and therefore, on 30.10.2004, the
respondent took a decision to drop the departmental inquiry
against the petitioner's husband. After his death, the petitioner
made a representation to give retirement dues. The retirement
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
benefits were given on 10.11.2015 and the sanctioned pension
and other retirement benefits to the tune of Rs.10,65,380/- was
paid to the petitioner.
[4.1] In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016 praying
for appropriate direction to declare that the petitioner was
entitled to receive 18% form 30.10.2004 till 10.11.2015.
[5] We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for
the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the appellant
has contended that after dropping of the departmental inquiry
on 30.10.2004, the petitioner made representation for the first
time on 05.02.2013. It is further contended that the husband of
the petitioner retired on 31.07.1986 and period of 27 years had
passed and necessary service record were not on hand with the
petitioner. After the duplicate service record were provided by
the original petitioner and after completing due procedure, the
pension was passed on 10.11.2015 and therefore, the delay
cannot be attributed to the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
[5.1] Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has further contended
that the brief reasons, which are assigned by the learned Single
Judge, are not sufficient enough to substantiate the ultimate
conclusion. That being so, the order passed by the learned
Single Judge requires to be corrected by granting relief as
prayed for in the writ petition.
[6] Having gone through the material on record, the
explanation given by the appellant's advocate with regard to
late payment made to the original petitioner after dropping the
inquiry is untenable to countenance.
[7] The departmental inquiry was admittedly dropped on
30.10.2004 by the respondents. The dropping of the inquiry
was the point of time when the appellant Panchayat was obliged
in law to proceed to make payment of retirement benefits
including pension to the respondent-petitioner. The appellant
authority remained lethargic and inactive. The ground, which is
now sought to be canvassed for advancing the justification to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
such conduct is that the respondent no.1-petitioner made
representation only in the year 2013 and that thereafter the
authorities moved to treat the case of the petitioner for
payment of retirement benefit. Once the departmental inquiry
was dropped, it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to
give the retirement benefits of the petitioner in time. The
payment of retirement benefit and pension is a positive
obligation cast in law, for, the pension is not a bounty or
largesse but it is a payment to the government employee to be
made to subscribe and honour his right.
[8] Receiving pension is a right for retired employee in all
normal circumstances. It is reward for a Government employee
who has toiled hard during his service tenure to serve the
Government. It is for the authorities to act towards availing the
entitlement of retirement benefits to a retired employee. Taking
a stand that the pension papers and retirement benefit papers
were activated only when the representation was made by the
concerned employee or government servant cannot be
countenanced. With such explanation not tenable in law, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
appellant authorities whiled away long 11 years in making
payment to the petitioner of his retirement dues. When an
affirmative obligation was ignored by the authorities and the
payment of retirement benefit was delayed to such an extent
after dropping of the departmental proceedings against the
petitioner, the deprivation of the benefit to the petitioner has to
legitimately accompany the interest. The grant of interest by
learned Single Judge would therefore be said to be eminently
doing justice to the petitioner.
[9] From the overall circumstances, which emerge from the
record, and the contentions raised in the present Letters Patent
Appeal are meritless. We hereby confirm the order passed by
the learned Single Judge.
[10] The appellant shall make payment at the rate of 9%
interest within a period of four weeks from the date of passing
of this order, failing which the appellant shall make further
payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge is modified only to this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/51/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/01/2024
undefined
extent of date of payment. Letters Patent Appeal stands
disposed of according.
[11] In view of the order passed in the main appeal, connected
Civil Application also stands disposed of.
Sd-
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)
Sd-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
