Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 2210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
N.V.Anjaria, Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
District Development Officer Tapi District Panchayat – Petitioner
Versus
Kailashben Widow Of Ghelabhai Ranchodji Desai – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 51 of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 8743 of 2016
With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2023 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 51 of 2024
Decided On : 24-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr H S Munshaw
For the Respondent: Mr.Sanjay Udhawani, AGP
The court affirmed that pension is a right, and authorities must fulfill their obligations timely, with interest due for delays in payment.
Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clause 15 - Retirement benefits - Interest on delayed payment - The learned Single Judge directed payment of interest at 9% from 30.10.2004 to 10.11.2015, with a provision for 12% if delayed beyond eight weeks - The appellant's inaction post dropping of inquiry was deemed unjustifiable. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
(B) Right to pension - The court emphasized that receiving pension is a right, not a privilege, and authorities must fulfill their obligations timely. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The original petitioner sought 18% interest on retirement benefits from 30.10.2004 until payment on 10.11.2015, following the dropping of a departmental inquiry against her deceased husband.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the Single Judge's order, emphasizing the obligation to pay retirement benefits timely.
Issues: The main issues were the entitlement to interest on delayed retirement benefits and the justification for the delay in payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dropping of the inquiry imposed a legal obligation to pay retirement benefits promptly, and the delay warranted interest.
Result: Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is filed by the Tapi District Panchayat – original respondent assailing the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.08.2023 in Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was to direct the respondent – present appellant to give 18% interest on the retirement benefits to the respondent – original petitioner from 30.10.2004 till the actual date of payment which was 10.11.2015.
3. Learned Single Judge held that the respondent No.1 – original petitioner was entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the inquiry against the husband of the petitioner was dropped i.e. on 30.10.2004 till the actual payment of retirement benefits have been made on 10.11.2015. Further it was directed that if such payment was not made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the respondent No.1 – original petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is this direction which are challenged in the present Letters Patent Appeal.
4. The background of the facts which has led writ petition before the Court is that the husband of present respondent – original petitioner was working as Talati-cum-Mantri under the District Panchayat at Tapi. Her husband was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.1986 after completing more than 33 years of service and was entitled for 100% retirement dues. A criminal case was filed against him being Criminal Case No.1282 of 1985 in which he was acquitted by judgment and order dated 11.03.1988. Petitioner’s husband has died on 11.01.2004 and therefore, on 30.10.2004, the respondent took a decision to drop the departmental inquiry against the petitioner’s husband. After his death, the petitioner made a representation to give retirement dues. The retirement benefits were given on 10.11.2015 and the sanctioned pension and other retirement benefits to the tune of Rs.10,65,380/- was paid to the petitioner.
4.1. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8743 of 2016 praying for appropriate direction to declare that the petitioner was entitled to receive 18% form 30.10.2004 till 10.11.2015.
5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. H. S. Munshaw for the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw for the appellant has contended that after dropping of the departmental inquiry on 30.10.2004, the petitioner made representation for the first time on 05.02.2013. It is further contended that the husband of the petitioner retired on 31.07.1986 and period of 27 years had passed and necessary service record were not on hand with the petitioner. After the duplicate service record were provided by the original petitioner and after completing due procedure, the pension was passed on 10.11.2015 and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed to the appellant.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has further contended that the brief reasons, which are assigned by the learned Single Judge, are not sufficient enough to substantiate the ultimate conclusion. That being so, the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be corrected by granting relief as prayed for in the writ petition.
6. Having gone through the material on record, the explanation given by the appellant’s advocate with regard to late payment made to the original petitioner after dropping the inquiry is untenable to countenance.
7. The departmental inquiry was admittedly dropped on 30.10.2004 by the respondents. The dropping of the inquiry was the point of time when the appellant Panchayat was obliged in law to proceed to make payment of retirement benefits including pension to the respondent-petitioner. The appellant authority remained lethargic and inactive. The ground, which is now sought to be canvassed for advancing the ju
