The delay in payment of retirement benefits was solely attributable to the respondents, and the petitioner is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief :

“18(a). This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to receive 18% interest from 30th October 2004 till the actual payment is made to the petitioner and accordingly direct the respondents, their servants and agent to pay the 18% interest over the retirement dues for a period of 11 years (From dtd. 31/10/2004 to dtd. 18/12/2015).”

2. FACTS :

2.1. The husband of the petitioner Ghelabhai Ranchhodbhai Desai was working as Talati cum Mantri under the District Panchayat at Tapi. Her husband was appointed and joined his duty on 1/6/1952 and he has retired at the age of superannuation on 31/7/1986 and therefore, her husband completed more than 33 years of service and hence he is entitled to 100% retirement dues.

2.2. That when the husband of the petitioner was in service and working as Talati cum Mantri of village Bhimrad, a criminal case was filed against him being Criminal Case No.1282 of 1985 but in the said criminal case, he was acquitted by judgement and order dated 11/3/1988.

2.3. After acquittal, the husband of the petitioner approached the competent authorities and requested to pay his retirement dues and at least his provisional pension. As nothing was done, on 23/3/1992 a detailed representation was made requesting that at least provisional pension may be sanctioned and leave encashment and other consequential benefits like benefits of pay fixation from time to time as per the rules may be fixed with arrears of salary.

2.4. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner died on 11/1/2004 and therefore, on 30/10/2004, the District Development Panchayat, Surat taken a decision to drop the departmental inquiry against the husband of the petitioner.

2.5. Even after dropping of the inquiry in the year 2004, pension and other retirement dues have not been paid to the petitioner and therefore on 5/2/2013, the petitioner made a representation requesting to fix pension and pay other retirement dues which her husband was entitled to receive.

2.6. Even thereafter on 10/11/2015, the respondent No.2 sanctioned pension and other retirement benefits and actual payment of Rs.10,65,380/- was paid wide State Bank of India’s Cheque No.113060.

2.7. It is the case of the petitioner that criminal case pending against her husband was disposed off on 11/3/1988 and even departmental inquiry was dropped on 30/10/2004 and therefore at least from October, the respondents should have paid the retirement dues to the petitioner within a reasonable time, however, the respondents have paid the retirement benefits to the petitioner after 11 years that too without interest. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents are solely liable for the delay in payment of the retirement dues and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 18% for the delay of 11 years on delayed payment of retirement dues.

3. Submissions of the petitioner.

3.1. Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr.V.H. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was working as Talati cum Mantri under the District Panchayat at Tapi and he was appointed and joined his duty on 1/6/1952 and he has retired at the age of superannuation on 31/7/1986 and he has completed more than 33 years of service and hence he is entitled to 100% retirement dues.

3.2. Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that while in service, Criminal Case No.1282 of 1985 was against her husband however, in the said case, her husband was acquitted by the competent court vide judgement and order dated 11/3/1988.

3.3. Ms.Tejal Vashi, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that after acquittal, the husband of the