Kantilal P. Kadia vs District Development Officer and Another

V.M. Sahai, J.—Heard Mr. Saurabh M. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate appearing for the Appellants.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1767 of 2000 whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to grant interest on delayed payment of pension to the Appellant.

It is the case of the Appellant that he retired from the services of the Panchayat on 31.05.1998 but received the amount of commuted valued pension and gratuity in the month of February 1999. The Appellant - Petitioner therefore filed Special Civil Application No. 1767 of 2000 before this Court seeking interest over the retiral benefits paid some eight months after the date of his retirement. The learned Single Judge after considering the case of the Appellant-Petitioner in detail came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is not entitled to interest as claimed by him.

The reasons given by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition of the Appellant-Petitioner are extracted as below:

In fact, the same was delayed on account of non-coordination between the two departments. That is, prior to the year 1989, the accounts were maintained by the Office of the Accountant General, since then, the said functions were transferred to the Director of Pension & Provident Fund. Because of the non-cordination between the two offices, certain credits were not recorded and the accounts were not finalized. Had that been done in good time, the Petitioner could have produced `No Due Certificate'' earlier. I see no substance in this contention. The communication relied upon by Mr. Shah is that of the year 1994. Since then, after a long time, the Petitioner had retired from service. The said communication, therefore, cannot be pressed into service to explain the delay. It is indisputable that on the date of retirement, the Petitioner owed certain amount to the Government. The concerned authority, therefore, could not have given `No Due Certificate'' to the Petitioner. It was only on 9th December, 1998, for the first time, the Petitioner agreed that the said outstanding amount be recovered from his retiral benefits. No fault, therefore, should be attributed to the Respondent authorities for not issuing `No Due Certificate''. I am, therefore, of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to interest as claimed by him. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.

In the event of non production of photograph and ''No Due Certificate'' within time by the Appellant, the Respondent department could not have disbursed the amount due. The required formalities were completed by the Appellant-Petitioner not before 09.12.1998. Therefore, as and when the photo graphs and relevant certificate were produced by the Appellant-Petitioner, the amount was sanctioned within two months from the date of production of the same. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.