SCA/3646/1987 of H.S. PANNU Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 20 December 2001

1. Special Civil Application No. 3646 of 1987 MR S TRIPATHY for Petitioner No. 1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents No. 1-2

-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH

Date of decision: 20/12/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent to disburse and to pay to the petitioner the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards gratuity amount together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.50,000/- from 1-5-1985 till the date of payment and for further directions to the respondents for issuance of orders to fix the final pension and to commute such portion of pension as admissible under the Rules and obtain lumpsum pension thereon. 2. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Agriculture and Rural Development and in para 3 thereof it is stated that after No Inquiry Certificate was issued, the final pension payable to the petitioner was determined and the same has already been paid to the petitioner. On 8-10-1995 100% provisional pension was ordered to be paid to the petitioner with effect from 1-3-1985. Even the petitioner was paid 100% provisional pension from October, 1985. But as per the Government policy, complete and full amount of gratuity was not paid on account of pendency of the ACB inquiry. Ultimately, a sum of Rs.31,000/- has been paid on 14-8-1987 and the amount of Rs.5,000/- was withheld because the amount was borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent no. 1 for purchase of the vehicle was not credited in the A/c and the same ought to have been credited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner on 14-8-1987. At least, the petitioner is entitled to some interest on the amount of gratuity from the dated which it was due till the date on which actually it was paid. It appears that from the record that some ACB inquiry was pending against the petitioner and due to that reason the provisional pension was fixed. But later on, when no prima facie case was found against the petitioner, the ACB inquiry was dropped and No Inquiry Certificate was issued for final pension payable to the petitioner. As such, final pension has already been paid to the petition. Not only that, but the amount of gratuity has also been paid to the petitioner on 14-8-1987.

3. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner

3. In the last, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to commutation of pension at the relevant time and the petitioner could be able to use that amount of commutation of pension. In this respect I find that Rule was issued by this Court returnable on 6-2-1989 vide order dated 24-1-1989. Thereafter, the affidavit-in-reply was also filed on 6-2-1989. Sincere attempt or effort ought to have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for expeditious hearing of this petition. After finalisation of the pension, the petition should have been allowed for commutation of pension in the year 1989 and in that case this petition could have been decided in the year 1989.

any good ground for interference by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.

-0-0-0-00-

/JVSatwara/