IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ANANT S. DAVE, J.
S.S. Patel - Petitioner
Versus
Director of Pension & Provident Fund, Gandhinagar & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 29641 of 2007
Decided On : 16-06-2008
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 226 - Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 - Rule 41(1)(a) - Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who retired from post of Reader from M.S. University for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the authorities, to finalise pension case of petitioner and make payment of pension, gratuity and commutation of pension and to release other retiral dues with reasonable rate of interest on delayed payment and also to award exemplary cost - Held, petitioner herein has persuaded representations relentlessly as supported by No.5 - University and even till 2003 as disclosed under Information Act, recommended by No.4 to release pension and other retiral dues, approached this Court after exhausting all remedies and persuasion, filed this petition in the year 2007 cannot be said to be responsible for delay in any manner - Delay is completely attributable to No.1 to 4 and they are hereby directed to finalise and fix pension and other retiral dues and release the amount towards retiral dues as payable to the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn, from the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement till its realisation with 9% interest within six weeks from today - This case with earlier cases is nothing but hairsplitting exercise, solely with a view to deprive the petitioner of a claim which was already accepted and recommended by NO.4 uptil 2003 and only when it was realised that denial of benefits may entail interest as well as cost, the stand is taken to justify denial and objection to the claim of pension and retiral dues of the petitioner on flimsy and nebulous grounds - Court do not think it just and proper to refer this matter to Bench taking up contempt matters even though conduct of s No.1 and 4 deserves condemnation - Court is of the opinion that the counsel's fees and cost are quantified to Rs. 25,000/-and cost is to be born by s No. 1 to 4 accordingly - Order Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Anant S. Dave, J.
Rule. Learned AGP Shri S.P. Hasurkar waives service of rule on behalf of - State.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who retired from the post of Reader from M.S. University, Baroda w.e.f. 30.11.2000 for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the authorities, to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and make payment of pension, gratuity and commutation of pension and to release other retiral dues with reasonable rate of interest on delayed payment and also to award exemplary cost.
3. The short facts are as under:
3.2. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement and sought permission of NO.5 on 3.8.2000 on completion of 32 years of total service in various educational institutions. The above application of seeking permission for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2000 was forwarded by NO.5 - University to the Commissioner of Higher Education - NO.4 herein and as per procedure, a certificate is to be issued by the Director of Pension and Provident Fund - NO.1 herein with regard to pensionable service of the concerned officer, after verifying the original service book of the petitioner. By a letter dated 8.11.2000, a certificate was issued to the effect that petitioner had completed pensionable qualifying service of more than 25 years and upon the above certificate after careful scrutiny by Commissioner of Higher Education - NO.4 herein, by order dated 4.12.2000 sanctioned the voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.11.2000 and consequential order came to be passed from NO.5 - University on 2.3.2001.
3.3. Therefore, by the end of the year 2000, after following all relevant procedure as required under Rules, the petitioner was permitted to retire voluntarily after considering completion of 25 years of qualifying pensionable service based on verification of service book and other relevant records of the petitioner.
3.4. It is to be submitted that so far as NO.5 - University is concerned, it is all supportive of the petitioner for receiving pension and accordingly from time to time the University has entered into correspondence with either NO.1 or NO.4 to release retiral dues of the petitioner.
3.5. From the record it appears that certain objections were raised by NO.1 on 4.8.2001 about non-exercise of option by the petitioner for pension at relevant point of time, on the basis of certain clauses of Government Resolution dated 15.10.1984 by which pension scheme was made applicable to the teaching staff of the Universities by the State of Gujarat w.e.f. 1.4.1982.
3.6. As per NO.1, the petitioner cannot be given retiral dues in view of non-exercise of option for pension, though mandatory to do so within a period of one year from the date of issue of the above Government Resolution either to continue in Contributory Provident Fund or to come under the scheme of Government Resolution and option as exercised shall be final. If any member of the staff do not exercise option wit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.