Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4103/2005 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4103 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
==========================================
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 ?
==========================================
HAROON
RASHID ABDULMATINKHAN PATHAN
Versus
AHMEDABAD
MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE
==========================================Appearance
:
MR VM
DHOTRE for the Petitioner
MR HS MUNSHAW for
the Respondent
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
Date
: 07/03/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since
the payment of gratuity and provident fund has already been made at
the time when the employee was dismissed and he did not make payment
back at the time when the Tribunal passed the order, it would not
be appropriate now to repay the amount. The question of salary then
also gets under cloud because the employee himself has not followed
the order of the Tribunal in returning the gratuity and provident
fund. The petitioner has not been paid pension since 2002.
3. The
learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner did not
join the duty, he was not paid pension as he remained dismissed
employee. This proposition set up by the learned counsel for the
respondent is under misconception because the respondent knew that
his reinstatement has been ordered. The question of payment of
gratuity and provident fund was regularly in consideration as he was
in regular touch with the employee. The employee could resume his
duty if asked. No formal proposal from the respondent is coming
forward. Since the petitioner has not worked, for sometime, payment
of salary for that period cannot be countenanced. But, then this
cannot be lost sight. But from 2002, the employee was without
pension. So delayed payment of pension entails the respondent to pay
interest on it. The respondent should calculate the amount of pension
from the day the petitioner is deemed to have retired at the rate
which he was entitled to receive giving notional benefits for the
payment of salary for which he is not said to have worked. Over and
above the pension, they would pay interest at the rate of 15% within
a period of six weeks. They would also pay the enhanced amount of
gratuity, which gets enhanced by his extended service.
4. With
the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is partly
allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
omkar
Top