Gujarat High Court High Court

Indravadan vs Principal on 4 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Indravadan vs Principal on 4 May, 2010
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/4140/2008	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4140 of 2008
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
 
 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To
			be referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

 
=========================================================


 

INDRAVADAN
P. JOSHI - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
AJ YAGNIK for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 04/05/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs;

(A) To
admit and allow the present petition.

(B) To
direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner amount of respective
rate of interest applicable vide resolutions and notifications of the
State of Gujarat issued from time to time on the amount of gratuity
and commutated pension totaling about Rs.2,44,404/- with effect from
03.09.1990 till actual date of payment;

(C) In
the alternative, be pleased to direct the respondents to pay to the
petitioner compound interest at the very rates prescribed by the
respondent State of Gujarat applicable from time to time with effect
from 03.09.1990 till the actual date of payment on the total amount
of Rs.2,44,404/-.

(D) In
the alternative, be pleased to direct respondents and respondent no.1
in particular to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment
of amount of gratuity and pension to the tune of Rs.2,44,404/- from
03.09.1990 till the actual payment.

(E)
to (G) ……

2. The
facts in brief are that on 01.04.1968 the petitioner was appointed as
a Mamlatdar in the Revenue Department of the State Government. He
was, thereafter, permanently absorbed in the Gujarat Communications &
Electronics Ltd., Vadodara, a wholly owned Company of the Government
of Gujarat, w.e.f. 03.03.1990. On 30.09.2000 the petitioner retired
from service.

3. It
is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for commutated
pension, gratuity, etc. for the service rendered by him with
respondent-Revenue Department for the period 1968 1990. However,
he was paid the same only on 16.01.2007. Therefore, he is entitled
for interest to the tune of Rs.2,44,404 on the amount of commutated
pension and gratuity for the period between 1990 to 16.01.2007. The
petitioner had made several representations to the respondents.
However, none were considered. Hence, this petition.

4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. It is stated at the bar by the learned AGP that the
petitioner has been paid the amount of Gratuity, which he is entitled
under the relevant Rules. The said fact is not disputed by learned
counsel for the petitioner. Now, so far as the issue regarding
interest on the amount of commutated pension is concerned, in my
opinion, the same could not be granted. No interest could be paid on
the amount of commutated pension. Hence, the relief claimed by the
petitioner, being devoid of any merits, deserves to be rejected.

5. In
view of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]

Pravin/*

   

Top