Ramsingh Bhagubhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 7220 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Ramsingh Bhagubhai Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2025

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/14314/2019                                        ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14314 of 2019

                      ==========================================================
                                          RAMSINGH BHAGUBHAI CHAUHAN & ANR.
                                                          Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
                      MS FORAM SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                         Date : 06/10/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed for following prayers:

a) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting impugned communication dated 10.05.2016 issued by respondent no. 2 (at Annexure-A) and further be pleased to direct respondent authorities to pay interest at the rate of 18% on delayed payment of retirement benefits to the petitioners from the date of entitlement of such retirement dues till the date of actual payment;

b) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest at the rate of 18% for delayed payment of retirement benefits to the petitioners from the date of entitlement of such retirement dues till the date of actual payment;

c) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such:

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

a) The petitioners are the retired employees of the Panchayat Department.

The petitioner no. 1 was appointed with the office of District Panchayat as senior clerk w.e.f. 07.05.1979. The petitioner no. 2 was appointed with the office of Taluka Panchayat as junior clerk from 01.09.1981.

b) The respondent-District Development officer issued an order on 17.06.2013 permitting the petitioner no. 1 to retire from 30.06.2013. The respondent-District Panchayat Office issued an order on 11.06.2013 permitting the petitioner no. 2 to retire from his service from 30.06.2013. Thus, petitioners retired from their respective services on 30.06.2013. The petitioners have served the respondent-Panchayat department for over 30 years.

c) Pursuant to the retirement of the petitioners, the pension papers were forwarded to the local fund office. However, the pension papers of petitioners were not processed for the reason that certificate confirming that no departmental examination has been conducted was not issued in the case of the petitioners.

d) The petitioners submit that respondent-District Development Authority issued a certificate on 20.07.2013 confirming that departmental examination has not been conducted till July, 2011. However, petitioners have retired in the year 2013 and therefore, the aforesaid certificate was not acceptable as a result of which the pension papers of petitioners could not be processed.

e) As an interim arrangement, orders for granting provisional pension in favour of petitioners were issued on 03.03.2014 in favour of petitioners and an amount of Rs. 9180/- was fixed as an provisional pension for petitioner no. 1 and an amount of Rs. 11,225/- was fixed in the case of petitioner no. 2.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shivangi Rana for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Devang Bhatt for learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for respondent no. 3 and learned AGP Ms. Foram Sukhandwala for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Rana for the petitioners, has drawn my attention towards the fact that the petitioners had

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

retired on 30.06.2013 from service, which is under the Panchayat Housing and Rural Development Department. The petitioners are having service of more than 33 years and they retired in 2013 but the payment of the pension did not commence until 2015. She also pointed out that the representation is made by the petitioners before the concerned authority which is not properly considered on the ground that administrative instructions were received by the authority in the month of February, 2015 to consider such cases like the petitioners where departmental examinations were not held and the necessary benefits are required to granted accordingly and therefore, it is contended by the department in the response to the representation made by the petitioners that there is no delay in fixing the amount of pensionary benefits or payment of such benefits. The authorities, under such a vague explanation, have tried to escape the liability to pay the amount of interest also on such delayed or deferred payment. She has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2021 11 SCC page 543, para 13 and 14 of that judgment and submitted that appropriate order may be passed by directing respondent authority to pay the interest.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt appearing for learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has drawn attention to the fact that as such necessary actions are to be taken by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

state authorities and the necessary procedure is initiated by the Panchayat and therefore, the liability to pay the amount of pension or fix the amount of pension is of the State Government. He has drawn attention towards the communication of the state authority pursuant to representation made by the petitioners and has submitted that there is the pleading reasons given in the said communication by the state authority that due to administrative instructions received on 12.02.2015 by the Finance Department and pursuant to that the case of the petitioners were considered and therefore, the state authority has informed them there is no delay. He has also submitted that the Panchayat has acted promptly.

6. Learned AGP has drawn my attention towards the affidavit-in-reply filed by state authority and has contended that though the cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to file the petition as per the averments in the petition in the year 2016. The petition is filed after a delay of 3 years in 2019. She has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioners herein were granted second higher pay scale subject to passing the requisite examination which is sine qua non for the purpose of entitlement of second higher pay scale however, until the time of retirement of the petitioners i.e. 30.06.2013, the petitioners herein did not pass departmental

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

examination. Due to the examinations not being conducted, the pension papers of the petitioners were not processed. She has further submitted that on 23.12.2013, the certificates were issued by the present respondent that no departmental examinations were conducted until 30.06.2013 and therefore, by way of interim arrangement and order dated 03.03.2014 the order was passed granting provisional pension to the petitioners. And therefore, she has contended that since no departmental examinations were conducted until the retirement of the petitioners and considering the plight of the petitioners, other similarly situated persons - the Finance Department issued a communication dated 12.02.2015 to the respondent to sanction the final pension of such employees who are granted second higher pay scale but for the reason that no departmental examination had been undertaken during that period, and where final pension had not been released to such employees, appropriate action might be taken and pursuant to that payment was made in the year 2015 to the petitioners and therefore, there is no delay allegedly caused in the payment of pension is justified, in view of the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the present petitioners, and the petition is required to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar. I

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

also consider the fact that the petitioners have completed service of more than 33 years and on 30.06.2013 they were superannuated. Thereafter, it is also clarified by the respondent department that in December, 2013, no departmental examination had been conducted during that period before their retirement and therefore, the second higher pay scale given to the present petitioners where the requirement that the departmental examination be cleared by the petitioners was not satisfied. It cannot be said that when the examinations are not taken during that period the petitioners can be considered to be at fault. As per the pension rules, pension papers are required to be prepared much in advance before the date of superannuation and the purpose behind the same is that when the person has retired from the service rendered to such institute by getting all the retirement dues immediately after retirement. In the present case it seems that petitioners are not at fault on any count. The delay is caused on part of the State Government, or the administrative side. It is also relevant to note that the the respondent authorities were well aware of the fact that the departmental examinations could not be conducted before the date of superannuation of the petitioners and therefore, on that count the amount of pension could not be delayed or deferred. However, it seems that the authorities have clarified this aspect almost after 6 months and thereafter granted

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

provisional pension in March, 2014, almost after 8 months. The final pension was sanctioned on 10.04.2015 almost after delay of 22 months. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances no justifiable reason is presented by the respondent authority, apart from the administrative instructions given in the month of February, 2015 regarding non-clearance of departmental examinations by such employees like the petitioners. I am of the view that the amount of retirement benefits including pension is required to be paid as early as possible preferably within one or two months from the date of retirement. In the present case there is delay in giving sanction to final pension is of 22 months which is required to be considered seriously. Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2021 11 SCC page 543, para 13 and 14 reproduced as under:

 13. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of the pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of the view that the rate of 12% p.a. which has been fixed by the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalise the State Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/14314/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.

 14. We accordingly order and direct that in substitution of the interest rate of 12% p.a. which has been awarded by the High Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall pay simple interest computed @ 6% p.a. on account of deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days from today. This direction shall, however in the facts and circumstances, be confined to Categories

(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of GOMs No. 26 dated 31-3-2020. We clarify that interest shall be paid to all pensioners of the State @ 6% p.a. on the deferred portion, for the period of delay. Having regard to the prevailing bank interest, the rate of 12% p.a. which has been fixed by the High Court, would need to be and is accordingly reduced.

8. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to get the interest on delay/deferred payment at the rate of 6% from date of entitlement of such retirement dues till the date of actual payment. The petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. It is open to the department to look into the matter and take necessary action against erring person in accordance with law.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) PD