Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
DINKAR AMBALAL SHAH - Appellant
Versus
NADIAD NAGAR PALIKA & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10260 of 2015
Decided On : 01-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 - Pension - Relief - Petitioner along with application submitted requisite documents for fixing pension - Petitioner also made application before respondent for commuted pension - It is case of petitioner that respondent had fixed pension of petitioner but had not paid commuted pension and petitioner had made a representation - Pursuant to such representation, respondent vide letter informed petitioner that since administrative expenses of Nagarpalika increased beyond payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped - It is case of petitioner that respondent had adopted revised pay scales and conferred benefits of such revised pay scales to its employees and petitioner vide letter requested respondent to pay the commuted pension to petitioner in view of improved financial condition - Learned advocate appearing for petitioner submitted that respondent is required to pay commuted pension to petitioner on his retirement which was denied to petitioner on ground that since administrative expenses increased beyond 45%, payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped.
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner has voluntarily retired and raised his demand for commuted pension which was refused by respondent and again raised his demand for commuted pension and pursued same, but on account of delay in raising request and also in view of Rule 315 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules under which such relief is sought itself contains that commutation of pension cannot be insisted upon as a matter of right, petitioner is not entitled to commuted pension as a matter of right - In view of facts and the decision of this Court, belated claim with passage of time read together with Rule 315 of B.C.S.R., petitioner is not entitled to commuted pension as a matter of right.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish H. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the respondent no.1.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(b) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent- Municipality to pay commuted pension to the petitioner forthwith;
(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue necessary directions to the respondent- Municipality to calculate commuted pension of the petitioner and submit a report to this Hon'ble Court;
(d) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of the aforesaid prayer clause;
(e) This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit and expedient in the interest of justice.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as an Office Superintendent with the respondent Nagarpalika and retired voluntarily on 30th September, 2007.
3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nagarpalika had fixed the pension of the petitioner but had not paid the commuted pension and therefore, the petitioner had made a representation dated 15th April, 2008. Pursuant to such representation, the respondent- Nagarpalika vide letter dated 26th November, 2008 informed the petitioner that since the administrative expenses of the Nagarpalika increased beyond 45%, the payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped.
3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, the respondent-Nagarpalika had adopted revised pay scales and conferred the benefits of such revised pay scales to its employees and therefore, the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd August, 2013 requested the respondent-Nagarpalika to pay the commuted pension to the petitioner in view of improved financial condition.
3.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the Collector-Kheda vide letter dated 17th September, 2014 had directed the respondent- Nagarpalika to consider the application of the petitioner for commuted pension in accordance with law and pursuant thereto, the respondent- Nagarpalika vide letter dated 10th April, 2015 informed the petitioner that the process of calculation of commuted pension is in progress and on completion of the same, the respondent Nagarpalika would take appropriate decision. However, the respondent-Nagarpalika did not pay the commuted pension to the petitioner and therefore, being aggrieved by such action of the respondent-Nagarpalika, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent- Nagarpalika is required to pay the commuted pension to the petitioner on his retirement in the year 2007 which was denied to the petitioner on the ground that since the administrative expenses increased beyond 45%, payment of commuted pension was temporarily stopped.
4.2 It was further submitted that by letter dated 10th April, 2015 the petitioner was informed by the respondent Nagarpalika that the process of calculation of commuted pension was in progress and on completion of the same, the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
