Reena Ravinder Sabarwal vs Sunaina Tomar, Additional Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7705 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Reena Ravinder Sabarwal vs Sunaina Tomar, Additional Chief ... on 6 November, 2025

Author: Bhargav D. Karia

Bench: Bhargav D. Karia

                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/MCA/414/2025                               ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

                                                                                                           undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 414 of 2025

                                    In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20714 of 2018

                       ==========================================================
                                           REENA RAVINDER SABARWAL
                                                      Versus
                                SUNAINA TOMAR, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MS VAISHNAVI VERMA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
                       MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Opponent(s) No. 3
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
                               and
                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA

                                                       Date : 06/11/2025

                                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard party-in-person for the applicant and learned AGP Ms. Vaishnavi Verma for the respondent nos. 1 and

2. By this application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(A) Be pleased to admit and allow the Present Application

(B) Be Pleased to take cognizance of the conscious, willful and deliberate disobedience and non-compliance of the Oral Judgment dated 11/07/2024 of this Honorable Court in R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION ΝΟ. 20714 OF 2018 and set into motion proceedings for Civil Contempt against the above-named Respondents Alleged Contemners and Prosecute and Punish them in the manner prescribed under CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

(C) Be Pleased to Pass Suitable Orders and / or Directions for implementation of the orders contained in the ORAL JUDGMENT dated 11/07/2024, passed by this Honorable Court in R/ SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20714 OF 2018, in event if the Honorable Court feels Gracious and decides to Pardon the alleged Contemners and Purge the Contempt Proceedings.

(D) Be Pleased to pass any other Orders and/or Directions as may be deemed fit considering the facts and circumstances of the present application and those that may be necessary in the Interest of Justice."

2. The operative part of the judgment and order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

17. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:

A. The respondent authority to call for service record of the petitioner upon receipt of this order. The respondent No.3 college to supply the service record/details to the respondent authorities within a period of two weeks thereafter.

B. The respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of benefits of the pension scheme in view of the Government Resolution dated 14.09.1988 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the service record/details of the petitioner.

C. The aforesaid exercise having been concluded, the petitioner to refund the CPF amount to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

respondent authority to avail the benefit of the pension scheme in accordance with law or the authorities shall pay the amount of pension after adjusting/setting off the amount of CPF; payable by the petitioner.

D. The representation produced at Annexure D be considered at the time of considering the case of the petitioner."

3. As the aforesaid directions were not complied with, the applicant has preferred the present application. This Court, by order dated 13.02.2025, called upon the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and to pay the amount of pension.

Thereafter, by order dated 25.03.2025, the respondents were directed to disburse the actual pensionary benefits to the applicant.

4. Thereafter, the following order was passed on 02.04.2025.

"1. The applicant-Party-in-person, who is present before this Court, though admitted that he has received an amount of Rs.14,25,145/- from the District Treasury Officer relating to the pension, he has submitted that the respondents have imposed penalty and also recovered an interest.

2. Learned AGP has tendered the communication dated 28.03.2025 written by the District Treasury Officer, Bhuj-Kachchh. The same is ordered to be taken on record.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Oza requests for some

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

time in order to take instructions.

4. The matter is kept on 06.05.2025. Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to file appropriate affidavit explaining, under which provision they have imposed penalty and also recovered interest from the applicant."

5. In response to the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 02.04.2025, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply explaining the levy of interest and additional penalty of 2.5% as per the Government Resolution dated 16.06.1989, which reads as under:

"5. I respectfully state and submit that, in accordance with Clause (2) of the Government Resolution, dated 16.06.1989, any employee who deposits an amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) after the cut-off date of 01.04.1989 is required to pay the said amount along with simple interest thereon, together with an additional penalty of 2.5%. A copy of the Resolution dated 16.06.1989 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ARI.

6. 1 respectfully state and submit that the applicant herein was paid a sum of Rs. 14,25,145 (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand One Hundred Forty-Five only) on 28.03.2025. It is further submitted that, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 68,331 (Rupees Sixty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-One only) has been recovered by the State towards the 2.5% penalty in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 16.06.1989. A copy of the calculation of the benefits paid to the applicant is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure ARII."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

6. It appears that thereafter, the applicant filed a rejoinder affidavit raising the dispute for recovery of penalty at the rate of 2.5%, as the same was never directed to be recovered by the learned Single Judge.

7. The following order was passed on 15.09.2025, which reads as under:

"Learned AGP Ms.Verma, upon instructions, has submitted that she would like to file further affidavit clarifying set-off of the amount of CPF and pension, as directed by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.17C of the impugned judgement and order dated 11.07.2024 passed in the captioned writ petition.

The matter is kept on 06.11.2025."

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in-reply stating as under:

"5. I respectfully state and submit that in order to comply with the directions of the Ld Single Judge the applicant herein was paid a sum of Rs. 14,25,145 (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand One Hundred Forty-Five only) on 28.03.2025 in accordance with law and in view with the resolution dated 16.06.1989. The resolution dated 16.06.1989 is annexed herein and marked as Annexure A. It is respectfully submitted that, at present the petitioner is currently enjoying all the retirement benefits."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

8. The party-in-person appearing for the applicant submitted that as per the direction issued in para 17(C) of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, there was no direction to recover the interest or penal interest at the rate of 2.5%. It was submitted that the respondent could not have recovered than what was required to be recovered as per the direction issued in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It was, therefore, submitted that the recovery of interest at the rate of 2.5% could not have been made in compliance with the said order.

9. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms.Vaishnavi Verma appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have duly complied with the order passed by this Court as well as with the provisions contained in the Government Resolution dated 16.06.1989.

10. It was further submitted that the applicant had failed to refund the amount after 01.04.1989. Thereafter, as per the Government Resolution dated 16.06.1989, the applicant became liable to pay the penalty along with interest at the rate of 2.5%, which is recovered.

11. It was submitted that there is no willful disobedience of the order or directions issued by this Court, as the same have been duly complied with by the Government

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/MCA/414/2025 ORDER DATED: 06/11/2025

undefined

Resolution dated 16.06.1989.

12. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for both sides and considering the above submissions, it appears that the learned Single Judge had passed the direction in paragraph 17(C), directing the petitioner to refund the CPF amount to the concerned authority to avail the benefit of pensionary scheme in accordance with law and, therefore, the respondents were justified in adjusting / setting off the amount of CPF as per the Government Resolution dated 16.06.1989. Hence, such action cannot be construed as willful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court.

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no willful disobedience has been committed by the respondent - authority, as the directions have been complied with in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

(L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES