Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 751
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.M.MEHTA
LAXMIDAS MOHANLAL PATEL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 3020 of 2000
Decided On : 10/25/2001
Headnote:(a) Rule of Natural Justice — Reasons for the order must be given — Where order of the Govt. dated 18-28.2.2000 has not given any reasons for rejecting the application of petitioner for pension, held order is bad in law.
In Court view the order of the Government is bad in law on the grounds, namely the Government has not given any reasons why the application of the petitioner for pension has been rejected. In Court view giving of reasons is one of the part and parcel of the rule of natural justice and the authority has not given any reason as to why the proposal for pension is rejected and, therefore, the order of the Government is bad in law. The Government has also not considered the recommendation of the Director of the Higher Education as well as the order of the Tribunal. Even the Government has not considered the interim order passed by this Court dated on 1.5.2000. Therefore, the order of the Government is bad in law. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to writ of mandamus of this Court. Court, therefore, quash and set aside the communication dated 18-28/2/2000 by which the Deputy Director of Higher Education has communicated the petitioner the decision of the Government rejecting the petitioners request for pension.
[Para 10]
(b) Interest — Delayed payment of pension — Petitioner retired from service on 23.6.1975 and since then unsuccessfully making all efforts including repeated applications to different authorities for payment of pension — A long period of 26 years have elapsed after his retirement without having got pension — Held, Govt. was liable to pay 10 percent interest on the amount of pension quantified by Govt. from 15.3.1990 to petitioner till pension is paid — Also directed Govt. to pay up the said pension by 31.12.2001 or pay interest at the enhanced rate of 12 percent.
The petitioner has retired from service on 23.6.1975 as principal. Therefore, he has filed an application which is on record of this case which is dated 15.3.1990 to the Secretary, Education Department, Gandhinagar, regarding his pension. The Government did not reply to the said letter nor did the Government pay pension. Thereafter, again the petitioner made a representation on 3.3.1993 to the District Education Officer, Baroda and, thereafter, the petitioner did not get his pension. Therfore, he filed an application No. 796 of 1993 before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the said application in favour of the petitioner and, thereafter, also the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, Higher Education on 10.3.1999 for obtaining pension and again on 11.12.1999, 28.2.2000 and ultimately filed the present petition before this Court on 5.4.2000 and today this matter has been disposed of by this Court. The petitioner has contended that 26 years have elapsed after his retirement and the goverment should be fastened with liability of interest right form 1975 when he has retired.
[Para 11]
Court directed the Government to pay 10% interest on the amount of pension which is quantified by the Government from 15.3.1990 to the petitioner till the pension is paid. Court also direct the Government to pay up the said pension by 31.12.2001 and if by 31.12.2001 the Government did not pay the pension, the Government will pay interest at the rate of 12% on the said amount till the amount is paid.
[Para 12]
( 1 ) LAXMIDAS Mohandas Patel-petitioner, aged about 80 years old, a senior citizen, has filed this petition praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to grant pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner immediately with penal interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2. 1 The petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher on 15. 6. 1954 in Wadi High School. The petitioner served as a teacher in Wadi High School from 15. 6. 1954 to 14. 6. 1964. Thereafter, from 15. 6. 1964 the petitioner was appointed as a Principal of Divyaprabha Kanya Vidyalaya. The petitioner served as a principal of Divyaprabha Kanya Vidyalaya from 15. 6. 1964 to 22. 6. 1975. 2. 2 It has been submitted in the petition that from 22. 6. 1975 Divyaprabha Kanya Vidyalaya was closed down and has remained closed since then. The said school had remained closed from 22. 6. 1975 and the petitioner served in that school upto that date. The District Education Officer had appointed Narayan Vidyalaya as a custodian of the record of Divyaprabha Kanya Vidyalaya from 1975. 2. 3 It has been further submitted in the petition that the petitioner was not declared as surplus teacher since there was no such provision for declaring the teacher as a surplus teacher. It is further submitted that from 1975 to 1984, the petitioner was trying to secure job elsewhere in any other school. However, the petitioner could not get suitable job till 1984. It has been submitted that after 1984, the petitioner did not try for job since the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. It has been stated that both the schools, namely, Wadi High School and Divyaprabha Kanya Vidyalaya were government approved schools taking 100% grant. The petitioner had thus put 21 years of service and therefore the petitioner is entitled to pension and pensionary benefits.
( 3 ) AS the grievance of the petitioner for pension was not redressed, the petitioner filed an application before the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal being application No. 776 of 1993 under Section 38 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner had rendered pensionable service i. e. the petitioner had served for 21 years and therefore he would be entitled to pension. However, due to closure of the school, the petitioner could complete only 21 years of service and thereafter also the petitioner was never declared surplus and therefore the petitioner would be entitled to pension. The Tribunal observing that the petitioner being a fairly old person i. e. 73 years of age (at the relevant time) and having regard to the fact that he is keeping indifferent health, directed that the petitioner to make make a representation to the Commissioner, Higher Education and the Commissioner Higher Education shall decide the same immediately. With those observations the said application was disposed of by the Tribunal.
( 4 ) HE further submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid judgement and order the petitioner made a representation to the Commissioner, Higher Education on 10. 3. 1999. A copy of the said representation is annexed at Annexure-D to this petition. The Commissioner, Higher Education, asked the petitioner to file a detailed affidavit. The petitioner accordingly submitted the affidavit on 16. 10. 1999. It has been submitted that after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Higher Education, by his letter dated 4. 12. 1999 requested the Government to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner has received a letter dated 20. 2. 2000 from the Commissioner, Higher Education, informing him that the Government has rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of pension. A copy of the said letter is annexed at Annexure-G to this petition.
( 6 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesa
