Gujarat High Court Rejects Application Seeking Benefits And Interests On The Ground Of Delay Under Contempt Of Courts Act

The Appellant herein had his services terminated against which he and other persons had filed a reference which was allowed. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled to similar benefits as another similarly placed daily wager. The Appellant had also approached the Court by way of Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act wherein the Division Bench had observed:

"In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have not fully complied with the directions issued by this Court. As much as pensionary benefits are extended and received by the applicant, during the pendency of this application, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to be proceeded further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

Subsequently, the Appellant filed the current writ petition seeking benefits as aforesaid which was rejected. It was contested by the Appellant that he had worked for 24 years and was therefore, entitled to retiral benefits including pension which was granted after delay. Additionally, the Appellant was entitled to interest due to the delay caused. Reliance was placed on Shah Babulal Balkrishna Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in 1997(2) GLR 1700 to bolster this contention.

Per contra, the Respondent argued that a similar prayer was considered earlier by the Division Bench in the case of the Appellant's co-worker which was dismissed. Hence, the current applicant ought to have been dismissed, as well.

The Bench comprising noted that the services of the Appellant were discontinued in February 1991 and came to be reinstated in July 1994. After adjudicating the writ petition, the High Court had directed the Respondent Authorities to decide the case within a stipulated time of three months. The same was complied with by the Respondent within due time. The Bench failed to find any delay in dispensing benefits to the Appellant and hence, found no reason to grant interest at 18% for delay. Addressing the Shah Babulal precedent, the Court opined that in that case, the pensionary amount of gratuity was illegally withheld on the ground of pendency of departmental inquiries. However, the factual matrix of the instant case differed. Further, the similar prayer of the co-worker of the Appellant was rejected. Hence, there was no reason for the High Court to interfere. Accordingly, the Application was dismissed.

Case Title: Bahdurbhai Devarabhai Khavad Versus Dy. Executive Engineer,Surendranagar Jal Sinchan Sub Division & 1 Other(S)

Case No.: C/LPA/688/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 102

Click Here To Read/Download Order