SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Guj) 1494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Ishwarbhai Amthabhai Parmar - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 6277 of 2002
Decided On : 02-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.S. Champaneri, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Goutam, Asst. Government Pleader.

The importance of conducting a detailed inquiry to verify the length of service and the entitlement to pension, and the need to ensure no recovery is made even if the original pension was wrongly fixed.

Headnote:

lethargy - Pension Dispute - [Constitution of India, Article 226], [Primary School Teachers' Pension Rules, 1971], [Pension Rules, 1972] - The court discussed the provisions of the Constitution of India, Article 226, and the Primary School Teachers' Pension Rules, 1971, and Pension Rules, 1972. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a detailed inquiry to verify the length of service and the entitlement to pension. The court ordered the quashing of the impugned order and directed the authorities to undertake a detailed inquiry to re-fix the pension, ensuring no recovery is made even if the original pension was wrongly fixed.

Fact of the Case:

The writ applicant, a retired primary teacher, sought relief from an order seeking recovery of excessive pension. The respondent claimed the applicant had worked for 16 years, while the applicant argued otherwise based on records.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the respondent's claim of 16 years of service to be without basis and ordered a detailed inquiry to re-fix the pension. The court also quashed the impugned order and directed no recovery to be made, emphasizing the distressing nature of the pension dispute at the applicant's age.

Issues: Dispute over the length of service and entitlement to pension, lack of opportunity for the applicant to be heard, and the distressing nature of the pension dispute at the applicant's age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of conducting a detailed inquiry to verify the length of service and the entitlement to pension. The court also highlighted the lack of opportunity for the applicant to be heard and the distressing nature of the pension dispute at the applicant's age.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the authorities were directed to undertake a detailed inquiry to re-fix the pension, ensuring no recovery is made even if the original pension was wrongly fixed.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. This is one of the grossest cases of lethargy on the part of the State Government, I have come across in the present sitting.

2. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a retired primary teacher, has prayed for the following reliefs;

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated at Annexure-G to the petition;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to make payment of the pension fixed and received till the impugned communication by way of interim direction till and pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the order dated Annexure-G to the petition passed by the respondent No. 2 herein during the pendency of this petition.

(E) That this Honourable court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to make counter endorsement and to forward the no event certificate and last pay certificate to the pension authority and to direct the respondents to make payment regularly of the pension fixed and received from time to time.

(F) Be pleased to grant any such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

(G) Be pleased to provide for the costs. pm"

3. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:

3.1 The writ applicant was appointed on 17th July, 1951 as a primary teacher in the Primary School at Siddhpur. After having worked as a teacher at different places, he, ultimately came to be appointed as a professor. According to the writ applicant, he served as a professor between 1st June 1988 and 7th April, 1989 in the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Arts College, situated at Relief Road, Ahmedabad. He attained superannuation on 7th April, 1989.

3.2 By an order dated 18th August, 1989, the pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 2038/- with effect from 8th April, 1989.

3.3 On 13th December, 1990, the respondent No. 2 called for certain information from the college. This information was for the purpose of fixing the final pension.

3.4 On 28th December, 1992, the respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the Pension Sanctioning Authority along with the no event certificate and Last Pay Certificate.

3.5 On 14th February, 1996, the treasury office informed the writ applicant to submit the last pay certificate and the no event certificate once again.

3.6 On 15th December, 1996, the writ applicant submitted the said two documents. The respondent No. 2, thereafter, informed the writ applicant vide letter dated 11th September, 1997 that an amount of Rs. 1,47,281.57ps. was recoverable paid to the writ applicant by way of excess amount of pension. Hence, this writ application.

4. This writ application is of the year 2002. It has been notified for 68 times. There is no affidavit-in-reply at the end of any of the respondents.

5. On 19th December, 2002, notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 4th February, 2003.

6. On 7th July, 2004, the following order was passed by this Court.

"Heard the learned Advocates.

Rule. Learned A.G.P. Mr. Dipen Desai waives service of rule for the respondents.

1. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 11th September, 1997 passed by the respondent No. 2 seeking recovery of Rs. 1,47,281.57ps being the amount of excessive pension paid to the petitioner, has preferred the present petition.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has retired from service as far back as in the year 1989, final pension order is not yet made. The Joint Director of Education had made order dated 18th August, 1989 sanctioning













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top