Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/254820/2009 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2548 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=====================================================
N
A TRIVEDI - Petitioner
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondents
=====================================================
Appearance
:
MR IS SUPEHIA for the
Petitioner.
MR KARTIK PANDYA, AGP for the
Respondents.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 20/03/2009
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or
direction directing the respondent to pay interest for the duration
and amounts as stated in para 9 of this petition at the rate of 10%.
2. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the
petitioner is entitled to the interest on the amount, which was paid
in the year 2007 and 2008 on delayed payment of arrears of pay, leave
encashment, gratuity, pension, etc.
3. At
the outset, it is required to be noted that this Court is at pains to
observe that prima facie, it appears that the judgement and decree
dated 30th June,2006 passed by the learned 6th
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.201 of 2004, is not
sustainable. It is very unfortunate that the State Government has not
preferred any appeal against that order and the petitioner was paid
approximately Rs.17,93,979/-. Be that as it may. It is to be noted
that the amount is paid to the petitioner on the basis of judgement
and decree of the trial court and even the petitioner also filed
Execution Petition. The petitioner ought to have claimed the interest
in the Execution Petition, which the petitioner has not claimed in
the Execution Petition and subsequently, the present Special Civil
Application is preferred. There is no deliberate delay on the part of
State Authority in disbursement of retiral benefits.
4. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case also, the petitioner is
not entitled to any interest as claimed in the petition. Even the
conduct of the petitioner, while withdrawing earlier petition being
Special Civil Application No.85 of 2000 also deserves to be
condemned. Though Special Civil Application was pending before this
Court, he filed another suit, subsequently he withdrew the said
petition. The petitioner withdrew the aforesaid Special Civil
Application but did not point out the aforesaid fact of suit before
this Court. In view of the above conduct, the petitioner is not
entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Under
the circumstances, there is no substance in the present petition and
the same deserves to be dismissed. The present Special Civil
Application is accordingly dismissed.
[M.R.SHAH,J]
*dipti
Top