IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that employees are entitled to interest on delayed retirement benefits when the delay is due to administrative inaction.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice of admission on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, is directed against the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition to the extent of denying the interest on the retirement benefits.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, appearing for the appellant has submitted that in fact, the appellant would be entitled to interest since he was illegally dismissed from the services on 10.10.1995. It is submitted that the District Education Officer has refused to grant the approval to the dismissal order and hence, the appellant filed an Application No. 119 of 2001 claiming the retirement benefits fixing his pension as well as revision of pay as per 5th Pay Commission. By the judgment dated 17.06.2004, the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as “the Tribunal”) allowed the application and directed the management to revise the salary and pay the arrears of salary from 01.01.1996 till 31.10.2000 and also to pay the provisional pension to the appellant along with all consequential benefits.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Vyas, that the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was assailed by the Management by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13036 of 2004 and by the interim order dated 25.04.2005, this Court had directed the Management to take all necessary steps in furtherance of finalization of the pension. Further, it is submitted that vide order dated 21.04.2014, this Court called for the Managing Trustee to remain present and it was observed that the pension case with service book was not yet prepared by the Principal and finally in the said order, the learned AGP appearing for the District Education Officer has made a statement, which is recorded by the learned Single Judge that the concerned office shall take necessary steps for the purpose of finalization of pension case on the basis of available records and ultimately, the said writ petition was rejected by the judgment and order dated 15.09.2014/16.09.2014. He has submitted that meanwhile, it is recorded in the said order that provisional pension of the appellant was fixed at Rs.1891/- per month by the order dated 21.05.2003 but without giving any benefits of 5th Pay Commission. It is submitted that finally, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, has recorded that it will be open for the appellant (first respondent) to seek the remedy as may be advised to him for redressal of the subsisting grievance, if any.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas, has further submitted that the appellant had filed an Execution Application No. 4 of 2015 in Application No. 119 of 2001 for implementation and execution of the judgment and order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted that it appears that by the order dated 17.02.2016, the Tribunal directed the Management to do the needful with regard to the higher pay-scale and necessary proposal should be sent to the District Education Officer.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Vyas has further submitted that since nothing was done with regard to the compliance of the order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal, he filed captioned writ petition before this Court claiming retirement benefits and the implementation of the order dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Management has also instituted a criminal proceeding against the appellant by filing a complaint with Vejalpur Police Station for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 408, 506(1) and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC), on 18.10.1995 however, he has been subsequently acquitted by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2012. Thus, it is submitted that despite the orders passed by this Court, the Management and the St