Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10089/2000 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10089 of 2000
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 ?
=========================================================
RAVJIBHAI
SHANKARBHAI METHANIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
KB PUJARA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s)
: 1 - 2.
MR ASIM J PANDYA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR AD OZA
for Respondent(s) : 3,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 4 -
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 17/06/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs :-
“[A]
To direct the respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 and particularly the
respondent no. 3 to forthwith pay the petitioners retirement
benefits-gratuity Rs.45,125/-, commuted pension Rs.64,829/- and
arrears of monthly pension from 1.6.99 onwards as per the orders at
Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ together with interest therein @ 18% p.a. and
to pay the monthly pension and other allowances regularly;
[B]
Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition be pleased to
grant ad-interim order in terms of para 9(A) above.
[C]
…… ”
2.
The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as
Primary Teacher with respondent no. 3 since 1965. Thereafter, the
petitioner was transferred at different places from to time. The
petitioner after putting into more than 33 years of service
voluntarily resigned from the service w.e.f. 31.05.1999. Pursuant
thereto, respondent no. 4 vide order dated 25/30.06.1995 fixed the
pension and directed respondent no. 3 to pay the pension and other
retirement dues to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4
apportioned the amount of pension and other retiral dues and
forwarded the same to respondent no.3. The respondent no. 3 was
thereafter required to pay the amount of pension and other retiral
dues to the petitioner as apportioned by respondent no. 4. It is the
case of the petitioner that till date respondent no. 3 has not paid
any amount to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that
the respondent-authority has paid the amount of pension and other
retiral benefits to the petitioner and now the only grievance which
is required to be considered is with respect to interest for the
delayed payment of pension and other allowances.
4. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. From the record it appears that the petitioner has
voluntarily retired from the service w.e.f. 31.05.1999. It is
required to be noted that at the relevant point of time i.e.
12.11.1975, at the time of inter-district transfer the petitioner had
not asked for the contributory benefits and had not completed the
service book accordingly. However, it was the duty of respondent no.
5 to complete the service book and give the contributory benefits to
the petitioner. Apart from that respondent no. 4 has credited the
amount of pensionary benefits in the account of petitioner and
therefore there is no delay on the part of the respondent. The
petitioner is, therefore, not entitled for any interest on the
pensionary benefits.
5. In
the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim
relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top