Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1048/2010 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1048 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Sd/-
=========================================================
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 ? 1
& 2 YES; 3 to 5 NO
=========================================================
PWD
EMPLOYEES UNION & 73 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHALIN N MEHTA for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 74.
MS MANISHA NARSINGHANI ASSTT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent:1-2.
None for Respondent(s) : 3 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
Date
: 08/02/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule.
Learned A.G.P. waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. Service
upon other respondents is dispensed with.
2.
Relying upon written instructions dated 06.02.2010, learned A.G.P.
submitted that fixation of wages of the petitioners in accordance
with the Recommendations of 6th Pay Commission is under
process (online). It was also stated that wages for February 2010
shall be paid according to the new fixation. Therefore, the question
that remains is about payment of arrears of difference of salary with
effect from 01.04.2009 and deposit of arrears due in respect of the
earlier period from 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2009, which is required to be
deposited in general provident fund in five equal yearly
installments. It could not be gainsaid that the workmen concerned,
represented by petitioner No.1-Union, are losing interest on account
of the arrears being withheld without any plausible reason and
apparently by way of discrimination insofar as other employees in
other districts under the same department are already granted the
benefits.
3. Under
the circumstances, even as the petition was not pressed for any
further direction and learned A.G.P., on instructions of Mr.Kishore
Modi, who is present in the Court, made a statement that the arrears
will also be paid within a period of eight months, it would be
reasonable to direct the respondent to pay the arrears as aforesaid
as early as practicable and with interest calculated @ 8% p.a.,
whether it is paid in cash for the preceding nine months or deposited
in the G.P.F. account of respective employee, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. The interest shall be calculated for
the delayed payment with effect from 01.10.2009 till the date of
payment. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to
costs.
4. Respondent
shall be at liberty, in accordance with law, to recover from the
officers responsible for undue delay, the amount of interest which
may be required to be paid to the workmen concerned on account of
unexplained and undue delay in making payment of arrears.
Sd/-
(
D.H.Waghela, J.)
(KMG
Thilake)
Top