Gujarat High Court
Bachubhai Jerambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 12 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13310 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
=============================================
BACHUBHAI JERAMBHAI PADHIYAR(DECEASED) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
ARCHITA M PRAJAPATI(8241) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/
REPRESTENTATIVES for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 12/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Archita M. Prajapati for the
petitioner and learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Parth
Patel appearing for the respondent - State, at length.
2. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief;
"(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow
this Petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
(B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside
the impugned communication dated 27/12/2017 at Annexure D
and further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or
direction or writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2
and 3 to calculate and pay the interest @ 10% per annum on
the delayed payment of Higher Grade Pay Scale in Salary as
well as Pension from 1/6/2002 to 30/11/2016 and upon the
delayed payment of 300 days leave encashment which was
required to be paid on 31/7/2004 in the light of the direction
issued by this Hon'ble Court in SCA No.10142 of 2009 within a
stipulated period;
(C) pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and
operation of the communication dated 27/12/2017 and further
be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 herein to
calculate and pay the interest @10% per annum on the delayed
payment of Higher Grade Pay Scale in Salary as well as
pension from 1/6/2002 to 30/11/2016 and 300 days leave
encashment;
(D) Any other relief deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this
case may please be granted.
3. SHORT FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE :
3.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted here that original
petitioner died during the pendency of this matter, his
legal heirs brought on record and as such, entitled to get
relief as prayed by the original petitioner in this petition.
3.2. As per the prayers made by in this petition that having
received higher grade pay-scale in salary, higher pension
and leave encashment, belatedly much after his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
retirement, entitled to receive interest on such delayed
payment.
3.3. It is not in dispute that deceased - petitioner
superannuated on 31.07.2004 but not granted retirement
benefits by respondent as there was an amount towards
market rent i.e. Rs.4,53,943/- not paid by him to
respondent-State. So, in view of government dues unpaid,
retiral benefits not released by State at given point of
time.
3.4. As such, according to petitioner, aforesaid amount could
not have been withheld by respondent and in law, not
entitled to deduct any amount out of such amount
towards due and payable market rent, that too without
following due process of law. It is a case of petitioner that
such procedure not followed by respondent.
3.5. It appears that adjustment of amount i.e. market rent
from aforesaid retiral benefit etc., and entitlement of
interest on delayed payment of leave encashment
benefits, not paid in time, earlier in point of time,
petitioner preferred separate Special Civil Application
No.10266 of 2008 before this Court to get such reliefs. As
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
such, said writ petition is dismissed today by this Court
by way of separate judgment/order. Hence, adjustment of
market rent due/payable by petitioner to State and
entitlement of petitioner to get interest on delay payment
of leave encashment is already decided against
petitioner.
3.6. Be that as it may, fact remains that so far as granting
higher grade pay-scale in salary and consequently higher
pension are concerned, undisputedly, petitioner, though
retired from service on 31.07.2004, granted such benefits
by respondent only on 28.10.2016 and 03.01.2017
respectively. The amount of Rs.7,602/- and Rs.2,72,362/-
credited in the account of petitioner towards higher
grade pay-scale in salary and difference in higher grade
pay in pension respectively for a period as shown in para-
2 of the petition.
3.7. So far as payment of leave encashment of Rs.96,760/-
credited in account of petitioner on 30.06.2016 is
concerned, as observed herein above, this Court in the
aforementioned petition already dealt with such aspect
and not granted interest on such amount, i.e. no interest
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
granted on leave encashment amount paid by respondent
to the petitioner on 30.06.2016.
3.8. The petitioner, having received aforesaid amount after
inordinate delay, claimed interest on such amount by his
application dated 20.11.2017, submitted with
respondent. Such request of petitioner came to be turned
down by respondent, vide its communication dated
27.12.2017 (Annexure-D). Hence, the present petition.
4. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:-
4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would respectfully
submit that granting benefit of higher grade pay-scale in
salary and given its effect in the pension of the petitioner
was statutory duty cast upon the respondent who
required under law to make such payment / release the
benefits immediately as soon as accrued in favour of
petitioner. It is submitted that though petitioner retired
from his service on 31.07.2004, undisputedly, the
respondent released such benefits in favour of petitioner
only on 28.10.2016 and 03.01.2017 respectively,
whereby failed in its statutory duty, thus, petitioner
entitled to claim interest for such delay payment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
4.2. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would further submit
that as per the settled legal position of law that when
respondent found guilty of not making service benefits to
its employee in time, such employee is entitled to receive
the withheld amount once released, with interest.
4.3. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would respectfully
submit that despite several representations made to the
respondent authority by petitioner in the year 2013
including filing aforesaid writ petition in year 2008, no
effective steps were taken by the respondent in releasing
the amount in favour of the petitioner, rather under
pretext, so-called recovery of market rent from the
petitioner, entire service benefits of petitioner withheld.
4.4. Learned advocate Ms. Prajapati would further submit
that as per Order dated 15.09.2008, passed by this Court
in Special Civil Application No.10266 of 2008, whereby
respondent was authorized to deduct 50% of retirement
dues to adjust against amount of Rs.4,53,943/- (market
rent), there is no good reason available with respondent
to withhold the balance retirement benefits including
payment of higher grade pay-scale and fixation of higher
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
pension thereof.
4.5. Learned advocate Ms.Prajapati would further submit that
when respondent failed to discharge its statutory duty
and wrongly withheld the benefits accrued to petitioner,
given w.e.f. the year 2002 itself when entitled to receive
2nd higher grade pay-scale and consequently higher
pension on reaching the age of superannuation on
31.07.2004, in that view of the matter, respondent is
liable to pay interest on such delayed payment.
4.6. To make her submissions good, learned advocate Ms.
Prajapati placed heavy reliance upon three decisions of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court which in fact are
annexed with this petition. They are as under:
a)Special Civil Application No.780 of 2016 dated
15.01.2016;
b)Special Civil Application No.17415 of 2017 dated
04.05.2018;
c) Special Civil Application No.10142 of 2009 dated
30.01.2013.
4.7. Making the above submissions, learned advocate Ms.
Prajapati would humbly request this Court to grant
prayers made in this petition and further requested to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
issue suitable direction/s to the respondent to pay
interest at the rate of 10% per annum on such delayed
payment.
5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT -
STATE:-
5.1. Per contra, learned Asst. Government Pleader Mr. Parth
Patel would vehemently submit that there is no default
committed by the respondent in releasing the amount in
favour of the petitioner in the year 2016/2017, i.e. higher
grade pay-scale and higher pension. It is submitted that
when there is no default and deliberate inaction on the
part of respondent, germane from record, this Court may
not direct respondent to pay any interest on such
amount, as claimed.
5.2. Learned AGP would respectfully submit that prior to
retirement, at no point of time, petitioner made any
grievance of not receiving any higher grade pay-scale
and as such, relevant Government Resolution on the
basis of which such benefits released in favour of the
petitioner came into effect on 02.07.2007. In such
factual scenario, petitioner cannot claim interest w.e.f.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
01.06.2002, when paid such higher grade pay-scale in
the year 2016/2017.
5.3. Learned AGP would further submit that as soon as the
request made by the petitioner to grant him 2 nd higher
pay-scale, process to give him such benefit, has been
undertaken by respondent, and accordingly, passed
Office Order on 14.08.2015 (Annexure-B), whereby
appropriate amount released towards higher grade pay-
scale and higher pension in favour of the petitioner.
5.4. Lastly, learned AGP would submit that there is no policy
to grant interest for such delayed payment framed by
State and as such, no case is made out by petitioner to
get interest as claimed in the petition.
5.5. To buttress his arguments, learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel
placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik and Ors. Vs. State
of Haryana and Ors. Neutral citation - 2024 INSC 803,
as well reported in 2024 (12) SCALE 409 : 2024 LiveLaw
(SC) 831.
5.6. Making the aforesaid submissions, he would request this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
Court to reject this petition.
6. No other and further submissions being made by any of
learned advocates.
ANALYSIS
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties at length, following facts emerge which remained
undisputed on record.
a) The petitioner came to be retired from his service on
31.07.2004.
b) Retirement dues were not released in favour of the
petitioner by respondent due to government dues of
Rs.4,53,943/- towards market rent, as according to
respondent - State, petitioner illegally occupied Quarter
No.17 at Chotila, for which, he was required to make
payment of market rent.
c) Petitioner preferred writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.10266 of 2008 challenging such
withholdment / deduction of amount towards market
rent, as aforesaid, wherein this Court vide its order
dated 15.09.2008 passed following order;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule.
3. The respondent has ordered to recover Rs.4,53,943/- towards
the market rent of the Government quarter no. 17 at Chotila
which was occupied by the petitioner and has also not paid the
retirement dues to the petitioner.
4. In that view of the matter, on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the following order is passed:
(i)The respondent shall deduct 50% of the retirement dues
and shall adjust the same against the amount of Rs.
4,53,943/-. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of two months.
(ii)The balance amount(Rs. 4,53,943 - 50% of retirement
dues) shall be recovered by way of monthly installments
from the pension which will be 25% of the pension
amount.
(iii)It is made clear that this arrangement is made in
favour of the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of both the sides.
(iv)The parties shall complete the pleadings within a period
of nine months.
(v)It will be open to the petitioner to move for early hearing
after the pleadings are over."
d) The respondent thereafter appears to have followed the
aforesaid order and deducted 50% of such amount from
retirement dues and given effect of such order by
recovering balance dues from pension, which can be
seen from subsequent communications issued by
Department concerned, having placed on record by
petitioner in this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
e) Nonetheless, despite such recovery made by respondent
from petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that
why respondent not granted benefit of 2 nd higher grade
pay-scale to petitioner, which in fact he was entitled to
receive w.e.f. 31.05.2002 by Government Resolution
dated 02.07.2007 and consequently given its effect on
pension to be paid to petitioner.
f) There is nothing on record to suggest that any Office
Order passed by the respondent - State to withhold any
such amount because of aforesaid dues towards market
rent not paid by the petitioner.
g) The release of 2nd higher grade pay-scale in favour of the
petitioner undertaken by respondent only on 14.08.2015,
when petitioner requested in year 2013. On said date
office order came to be passed, thereby, released such
benefits and credited arrears in the account of the
petitioner on 28.10.2016. Also paid arrears towards
payment of difference in higher grade pay-scale in
pension for a period between August 2004 to November
2016, released and credited in his account on 3.1.2017.
h) The petitioner having approached respondent to grant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
interest on such delayed payment, the same was denied
vide impugned communication dated 27.12.2017.
8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid undisputed facts emerged
from the record, it would indicate that there was delay in
payment as regards 2nd higher grade pay-scale and pension
thereon in favour of the petitioner by respondent.
9. The only defence/excuse on part of respondent - State as
submitted by learned AGP, the petitioner has sought for
such benefits only in the year 2013; it was released in the
year 2016 and 2017. As such, when any Government
Resolution passed by the State, whereby confers higher
grade pay-scale in favour of its employee/s, it was duty
upon the concerned Officials of the State to release such
higher grade pay-scale to all eligible employees as soon as
possible without any unjustifiable delay. It is unfathomable
that such benefits could have been released by the State,
only when demanded by its employee. This Court is unable
to subscribe such stand taken by the State, as its contrary
to law. It is highly deplorable that State could release the
payment of higher grade pay-scale / higher pension to the
petitioner in the year 2016 / 2017 respectively, only on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
request made by the petitioner in the year 2013.
10. According to my view, there was complete carelessness,
negligence and non-application of mind on the part of the
respondent - State when not released aforesaid benefits in
favour of the petitioner as accrued in his favour as soon as
Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 came into effect.
It may true that once such Resolution passed by State
Government, department concerned may take some time to
process and release the benefits to its eligible employees,
which are more in number, but at the same time, it cannot
be gainsaid that such benefits can be released only if
requested by eligible employee/s concerned.
11. Apart from the above, in the present case, when petitioner
having approached this Court in the year 2008 by way of
aforesaid writ petition, wherein also complaint of not
releasing all retirement benefits made and as such, sought
to release such retirement benefits with interest, then,
according to my view, it was a wake-up call for respondent
- State to release all legitimate benefits accrued in favour of
the petitioner. Having not done so, without any just
reasons, respondent - State committed default in not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
releasing such benefits to petitioner in time, which entails
State to pay interest on such delayed payment.
12. The judgments which are relied upon by learned advocate
Ms. Prajapati, in support of her submissions, would helpful
to the petitioner, inasmuch as, in cited cases, when this
Court having found that respondent - State has not
released the legitimate dues of petitioner in time, petitioner
concerned held entitled to receive interest on such delayed
payment from State. The issue germen in this petition is no
longer remain res integra, as settled by Hon'ble Apex Court
in its number of decisions, that employee/pensioner
concerned would entitle to receive interest for getting the
service/retiral benefits be lately without any justifiable
reasons, from employer-State. [ See - D.D. Tewari V/s
Uttar Haryana Bijnli Vitran Nigam Ltd. reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 894]
13. So far as decision so cited by learned AGP of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of K.C. Kaushik and Ors. (supra)
is concerned, it appears that in cited case, appellants
before the Hon'ble Apex Court were found to be fence-
sitter who approached the Court on gathering knowledge
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
that other similarly situated employees have been benefited
by some order and in that peculiar facts and circumstances
of the present case, no interest was granted in their favour.
As such, facts of the present case and the case before the
Hon'ble Apex Court is completely different and thereby,
ratio of the aforesaid decision would not be applicable here,
thus, not assist the submission of learned AGP.
14. At the cost of repetition, it is now well settled legal
position of law that whenever this Court finds that
respondent - State has withheld the retirement benefits /
statutory benefits of employee/s concerned, without any
justifiable reasons / cause, this Court well, within its
Constitutional Right to grant interest in favour of such
employee/s, thereby, direct the respondent - State to pay
interest for delayed period on such amount i.e.
service/retiral benefits.
15. In view of forgoing reasons, this Court reaches to
conclusion that without any justifiable reasons, respondent
- State has not paid aforementioned service/retiral benefits
to petitioner in time, which released after quite long time.
16. Thus, in view of aforesaid, this Court hold that petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
is entitled to get simple interest @ 9% on the
aforementioned amount i.e. difference of higher grade pay-
scale in salary between period from June 2002 to July 2014
as well as difference in higher grade pay-scale in pension
between August 2004 to November 2016.
17. Now, next question which arose for consideration as to
whether said interest to be paid from the date as sought by
petitioner as prayed in this petition or some other date?
18. The petitioner having claimed interest to be paid from
01.06.2002 till 30.11.2016 on all aforesaid benefits. It is not
in dispute that 2nd higher grade pay scale benefit accrued in
favour of petitioner due to G.R. dated 02.07.2007, thus,
petitioner cannot allow to claim interest from 01.06.2002.
This Court cannot oblivious and ignore following facts, that
Government Resolution granting 2 nd higher grade pay-scale
came into effect from 02.07.2007, whereby petitioner
having been entitled for such higher grade pay-scale,
keeping in mind the fact that such benefit of higher grade
pay scale requires detail process at end of department and
thereby given its benefit to all its employees, and also
undisputedly he instituted earlier writ petition on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
08.08.2008 claiming interest on retiral dues, and further, at
time of actual retirement, dispute between parties pending
i.e. recovery of market rent, and demand of aforesaid
benefits raised in year 2013, according to my view,
considering aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, I would like to grant simple interest @ 9% on
aforementioned amount w.e.f. 01.01.2009 till
aforementioned payment received by the petitioner in his
bank account i.e. 28.10.2006 & 03.01.2017 respectively.
CONCLUSION
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, discussion
and reasons, only inescapable conclusion and direction
would be thus:
19.1. The respondent - State is held liable to pay interest on
service/retiral benefits paid very late to petitioner
without any justifiable reasons. The respondent - State
requires to pay simple interest @ 9% for
aforementioned delayed payment to petitioner - now to
his legal heirs, albeit w.e.f. 01.01.2009 till
aforementioned payment received by the petitioner in
his bank account i.e. 28.10.2006 & 03.01.2017
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
respectively.
19.2. The petitioner is entitled to receive simple interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.01.2009 till 28.10.2016 on
Rs.7602/- (payment of difference amount of higher
grade pay-scale in salary) being paid.
19.3. The petitioner is also entitled to receive simple interest
at the rate of 9% p.a. on amount of Rs.2,72,362/- from
01.01.2009 to 03.01.2017 (payment of difference of
higher grade pay-scale in pension).
19.4. The respondents herein are directed to calculate and
release / pay aforesaid amount of simple interest in
favour of widow of deceased petitioner i.e. Petitioner
No.1.1 viz. Jayaben Wd/o Bachubhai Jerambhai
Padhiyar.
19.5. The aforesaid payment of interest amount be made in
bank account of petitioner No.1.1 - widow of original
petitioner, on proper verification, on or before 15 th
January, 2026, failing which, petitioners are entitled to
receive interest on such amount of simple interest as
aforesaid at the rate of 9% p.a. from 16.01.2026 till its
actual realization.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13310/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/11/2025
undefined
20. In view of the foregoing reasons and conclusion, the
present writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule made absolute. No costs.
Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
Lalji Desai
