(1) RULE. Mr.Rakesh R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned advocate appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
(2) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“(A) Admit the Special Civil Application;
(B) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondent authorities to release the amount of interest for which the petitioners are entitled.
(C) Be pleased to award cost of this petition.
(D) Grant such other and further relief(s) as are deemed fit in the interest of justice;”
(3) The facts which emerge from the record of the petition are that petitioner No.1 was working as assistant with respondent No.2School and was superannuated w.e.f. 31.05.2010. That petitioner No.1 has received an amount of Rs.12,52,797/ by way of two cheques. That after receipt of the said amount petitioner No.1 made a representation on 30.06.2010 and prayed for further amount of Rs.22,480/ by way of deficit in the interest. That even the details of the accounts were enclosed with the said representation. The said representation was considered by respondent No.1 authority and was forwarded to respondent No.2 vide communication dated 22.09.2010 stating therein that as per the Rule the actual date of retirement would be 31.10.2009 considering the date of birth of the employee as 31.12.1951. That the said proposal was being numbered as 484 and the same was forwarded to the competent authority viz. Local Fund Office, Rajkot. That the said authority calculated the interest only upto 31.12.2009 and no interest was paid for further three months. It was also clarified by the said authority that since the proposal has been forwarded late in such case withdrawal of amount to be forwarded before three months of date of superannuation and if there is any delay in forwarding such proposal it would be sole responsibility of the concerned institution only.
(4) Similarly in case of petitioner No.2, the same stand is taken by the respondent authorities vide communication 28.09.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition.
(5) Heard Mr.Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Rakesh R. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Mr.Baiju Joshi, learned advocate for respondent No.2.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that in similar case of one Shri R.H.Vora the interest was calculated as demanded by the petitioners. No other contentions are raised by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner.
(6) In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 has filed affidavitinreply wherein it is pointed out specifically that the case of petitioner No.1 was considered in accordance with the Rules and policy of the government and that there is no infirmity in the order. It is also pointed out that after considering the case of petitioner No.2 it was found that petitioner No.2 is entitled to a further amount of Rs.7,536/ and, therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any amount on the delayed payment against respondent No.2school.
(7) Considering the affidavitinreply filed by respondent No.2School it transpires that both the petitioners have filed applications on 22.03.2010 for withdrawal of provident fund. It further transpires that on the very next day i.e. 23.03.2010 the said proposal was forwarded to respondent No.1 authority. The said application of petitioner No.1 was processed by respondent No.1 and an order was passed on 2/3.06.2010.
Similarly, even in the case of petitioner No.2 the decision is taken by respondent No.1 vide order dated 2/3.06.2010. Thereafter the applications filed by the petitioners dated 30.06.2010 and 09.08.2010 were considered by respondent No.2School and a proposal was forwarded to respondent No.1 on 10.08.2010. It further transpires that on the said proposal so made by respondent No.2School on 10.08.2010 no decision is yet taken.
(8) Considering the above facts, therefore, this Court finds no error in the decision dated 25.10.2010 taken by respondent No.1 authority while considering the application of petitioner No.1. Similarly respondent No.1 has also examined the case of petitioner No.2 and on finding that petitioner No.2 is entitled to further interest of Rs.7,536/ has taken a decision in accordance with law and as per the Rules applicable.
(9) As aforesaid thus, except the fact that the petitioners contended that calculation by the petitioners are correct, no other material is brought on record to show that the order impugned in the present petition is in any way bad and/or illegal. As can be seen from the communication dated 25.10.2010 respondent No.1 authority has relied upon the Rules applicable and has clearly stated that as the petitioners themselves were late in applying as it is required under the Rules to apply for the same three months in advance from the date of retirement the same was not done by the petitioners and, as recorded above, the petitioners applied for the same vide communication dated 22.03.2010 for the first time.
(10) Even otherwise considering the rival submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the stand taken by respondent No.2, the question of entitlement of interest as prayed for cannot be decided in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is disputed question of facts.
(11) In view of the above the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be rejected. NOTICE discharged. No costs.
Bhavesh* *** Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ]