Salim Ismilebhai Baloch vs The State Of Gujarat

1 This petition is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to grant the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. The facts are as under:

1.1 The petitioner was serving as a Line Man in Water Supply Department and superannuated in January, 2019 after rendering 36 years of service. He was appointed on 23.12.1983. Una Gram Panchayat was converted into Nagarpalika in 1986.

1.2 On conversion to Municipality, the petitioner and other similarly situated employees requested for regularization by approaching the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, by preference IT(R) No. 349 of 1987, 350 of 1987, 152 of 1987 and 31 of Page 1 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER 1990. Their request for regularization was granted.

1.3 The petitioner was given permanent status by Office Order dated 25.05.1992, w.e.f 01.01.1989. The challenge to the award failed before this Court.

1.4 The petitioner was considered for GPF and it was regularly deducted from salary. Since no pension benefits have been given on the ground that there is no pension scheme, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2 It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by several decisions. By a decision rendered in the case of Arjanbhai Panchabhai Bambhania vs. Una Nagar Palika., reported in 2011 JX(GUJ) 1334, this Court in the case of identical employees has passed the order, relevant para 6 of which reads as under:

" 6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case and the judgment and order dated 3.2.2011 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.214 of 2011 and allied matters, indisputably, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions came to be confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench since the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the aggrieved Municipality came to be dismissed by the Division Bench, and the petitioners herein were the employees of the respondent Municipality, who were also parties to the common award referred to hereinabove, which attained finality upto the High Court, and the common award passed by the Industrial Court in various References was never disturbed, modified or changed and, for all purposes, the petitioners employees had not only acquired rights but Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER their rights also came to be crystallized in their favour.

Besides, the similarly situated employees from the very respondent Municipality were ordered to be paid retiral dues and benefits by the learned Single Judge, which came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and all the contentions which were raised there are on par with the contentions raised herein by the learned counsels for the respondent Municipality and the State Government and answering those contentions, the Division Bench in paragraph 6 onwards held as under:

"6. It is undisputed position that all the concerned employees were treated in the GPF scheme, therefore, respective GPF accounts were opened and the deduction was also made from their salary from the date on which they were made permanent and until they retired from service or their service ended on account of their death. It is also undisputed position that all such employees were not treated in CPF scheme, which is applicable to other municipal employees and no deduction for the purpose of CPF has been made by the municipality from the salary of concerned employees. If the employee, when he is absorbed in service, is treated for all purposes in the GPF scheme for pensional benefits and not treated in the CPF scheme for lumpsum amount, and the said position continued until the person concerned reached to the age of superannuation or otherwise, would it be open to the employer or the concerned authorities to deny the pensionary benefits after retirement on the ground that the employees concerned was not eligible for pension as per the GPF scheme. In our view, if such is permitted to be entertained and accepted, it would not only be highly improper on the part of the authority, but can also be termed as atrocious action, which would be absurd on the face of it.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, however contended that the employees concerned, who were in the then panchayat service and subsequently continued in the municipality, were not recruited by the regular selection process and it was submitted that it is only w.e.f. 1.1.1989 they have been granted permanency benefit. When on 1.1.1989 permanency benefits were granted, they were taken as municipal employees and not as Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER employees of the panchayat. Under the circumstances, they would be entitled for all benefits, which may be available to other municipal employees. It was submitted that as per the decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat Vs.Ramniklal Dharshi Shah reported at (2010)1 GCD 675, such employees who were not recruited by the regular selection process of the then Gram Panchayat, could not be termed as in panchayat service and, therefore, would not be eligible for the pensional benefits as available to other employees of the panchayat or Government service. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that if the employees were of the municipality, there is no scheme of the Government for pensional benefits, but the scheme applicable would be CPF to the employees of the municipality. It was submitted that the learned single Judge was guided by the resolution of the Government, which in the submission of the municipality is not applicable and, therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous.

8. There cannot be any different view in respect of the employees taken by this Court in Chorwad Gramp Panchayat (supra). However, the point which arise for consideration in the present group of matters did not arise in the said case inasmuch as if for all purposes the employees concerned were treated as in panchayat service with the scheme of the Government for pension by deduction of GPF, would it be open to the Government or the municipality to deny the pensional benefits, if the employees concerned have retired from service. It is true that if one was not appointed by regular recruitment process, he may not fall in the panchayat service. In our view, the factum of giving treatment by the municipality and Government to all the concerned employees in the present case as member of the panchayat service and the consequent action of regular deduction of contribution of GPF account that too from the inception of the service as the permanent employees until reaching to the age of superannuation or until the services came to an end, would be sufficient to decline the entertainment of such plea taken by municipality Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER and/or the Government as the case may be, that the employees concerned in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in case of Chorwad Gram Panchayat (supra), would not be entitled for the pensional benefits. Be it noted that it is not the case of the appellant or any of the State authority that it is on account of any fraud or misrepresentation or any mischief played by the concerned employees at the relevant point of time or even thereafter they were treated as member of GPF scheme. Therefore, the question is to be examined in light of the bonafide action on the part of employee as well as the concerned officer of the employer or the Government, as the case may be. It is true that in normal circumstance, such estoppel may not operate against any statute but it is not a mere case of considering the question of estoppel. In our view, a case of conduct of the party concerned coupled with the alteration of the position of the party concerned throughout. At any point of time, neither the municipality or the Government has refunded the amount of contribution nor they have intimated to the employees concerned for their mistake or otherwise. After completion of the service, if such a plea is entertained or is accepted, in our view, it would result into allowing the atrocious treatment to be played by the municipality or the Government or its officers, which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

9. The aforesaid is coupled with the circumstance that it is not that in every case whenever a person is daily wager or a temporary employee of the Government, he would not be eligible or entitled for pension. On the contrary as per the policy of the Government, even if a person is an adhoc/temporary employee, after completion of requisite length of service, he is to be treated as eligible for the scheme of pension and once he is treated as eligible for the scheme of pension, and his contribution are being deducted from his salary, he would be eligible for the pension upon completion of the requisite length of service. Therefore, there is no absolute bar operating upon the entitlement of the pension by the employees of the then Gram Panchayat, who are treated as for Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER all purposes covered by the scheme of pension for the contribution from their salary and same position continued until they reached to the age of superannuation or until the end of their service.

6.1. Thus, the subject matter and issues involved in present group of writ petitions are almost similar and identical to the subject matter and issues of the above Letters Patent Appeals, where directions came to be issued to pay pensionery benefits and other benefits within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In view of the above, the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respondent Municipality and the State Government that the appointments of the petitioners were not approved or even the set up of the establishment was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority are irrelevant, when the common award passed by the Industrial court in various References ordering reinstatement, full back wages and granting permanency to the workmen attained finality. No administrative instructions or resolution can override the effect of the award passed by the competent court of law and, having received the benefits of the common award passed by the Industrial Court, and the petitioners attained the age of superannuation after conferment of benefits of permanency, they cannot be deprived of the retiral dues including pension/family pension on account of CPF scheme, for which the option was not exercised. Besides, the record produced by the petitioners would reveal that for all purposes, the respondent Municipality had accepted contribution of GPF and the accounts were opened accordingly and the amounts were also deposited in the accounts. Having done so, the respondent Municipality cannot retrieve the situation. Plea of financial burden cannot come in the away of this Court ordering the respondents to release and disburse the pension due and payable to the petitioners."

2.1 The Supreme Court in the case of Una Nagar Palika vs. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana reported in JT 2018(9) SC Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER 336, held as under:

"23. The Division Bench was of the view and, in our view, rightly that the distinction sought to be made between the two groups of employees, one coming from the Panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees was held to be of no significance because the appellant made the respondents members of the GPF contributions and went on to deduct regular contribution from their salary till the date of their retirement.

24. In our view, the case at hand is covered by the earlier decision rendered in the case of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Baloch and Others (supra) which stands upheld by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013. We are also of the view that the aforementioned distinction pointed out by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of the decision of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Balock and Others (supra) was also rightly found untenable by the High Court by assigning the proper reasons.

25. Keeping in view the aforementioned four undisputed facts arising in the case coupled with the decision rendered in the case of Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Balock and Others (supra), which has attained finality, and was then given effect to in relation to concerned Municipal Employees holding them eligible and entitled to claim the pension and the pensionery benefits, we find no good ground to take any other view than the one taken by the writ court and the Division bench in the impugned order.

26. Learned counsel for the appellant (Municipality), however, placed reliance on one State Government Circular dated 28.11.1994 (Annexure P1) and contended that in the light of this circular, the respondents are neither eligible and nor entitled to claim the benefit of pension. We find no merit in this submission. 27 Firstly, we find that it was not filed before the High Court (writ Court / Division bench); secondly, the writ court and the Division Bench did not refer it to; Thirdly, in any event, it is of no significance to decide the present controversy.

panchayat employees who later became the Municipal employees.

29 In the light of the foregoing discussions, we find no merit in these appeals. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed.

30 The appellant (Municipality) is directed to finalize the pension cases of the respondents herein and release the amount of pension after proper verification within four months from the date of this order."

3 It is pointed out by Ms.Krishna Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner which Mr.Tulshi Savani, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, cannot dispute that even by a decision in Special Civil Application No. 17034 of 2017, this Court extensively considered various decisions, relevant paras of which reads as under:

"4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dahyabhai Vajesing Aanjna Patel deceased through Heirs v. State of Gujarat being Letters Patent Appeal No.1099 of 2016 decided on 27th January, 2017. In that case also, petitioner - appellant was employee of the converted Nagar Panchayat and became employee of the Municipality who prayed to declare that he was entitled to pensionary benefits from the date of assuming services in the Panchayat.

4.1 The Division Bench observed thus, "8. In view of reliance placed on the judgment referred to above we have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant we are not prepared to accept the submission that the issue in the present appeal is governed by the ratio laid down in the above said judgment. We are of Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER the view that having regard to the fact situation both the judgments referred to above would not support the case of the appellant. The judgment in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others rendered in Civil Appeal No.5441 of 2016 dated 01.07.2016 (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is a case where a Municipality was converted into Gram Panchayat and upon such conversion existing staff of the Municipality was allocated to Gram Panchayat. In view of the same the question which fell for consideration was whether the staff of the Municipality, who were allocated to the Gram Panchayat can be treated as part of the Panchayat service. Further, in the aforesaid judgment it was categorically held that the deceased- employee was holding the post within the sanctioned set up of Safai Kamdars and he was getting regular salary. If one is appointed in the post within the sanctioned set up of the Gram Panchayat, he totally stands on a different footing than that of a person who is appointed to a post which is not sanctioned by Gram Panchayat. In view of the same the judgment in the case of Harijan Paniben Dudabhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others rendered in Civil Appeal No.5441 of 2016 dated 01.07.2016 (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, decision in the case of the Chief Officer Vs. Mohmad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch & others reported in 2011 (1) GCD 569 (supra) would not support the case of the appellant for grant of pensionary benefits. In fact, in the aforesaid judgement, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1381 of 2004 and allied matters decided on 2nd July, 2009 (supra) is not distinguished as in view of the facts of such case the appeal filed by the Chief Officer of the Municipality was dismissed, but at the same time the view of Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others (supra) is confirmed. As we are of the view that the facts of the present case exactly stand on the footing of the decision in Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others (supra), the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition based on the decision in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others (supra).

9. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Narsi Bacha Thacker Vs. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1998 (1) GLH 1022 also supports the case of the respondent- Gram Panchayat. In the aforesaid judgment it is categorically held that merely because a person is appointed by the Gram Panchayat, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits unless he becomes a member of the Panchayat Service as envisaged under section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961. It is categorically held that unless it is established that the appointed person is a member of the Panchayat Service, he cannot be held to be a civil servant of the State to claim pensionary benefits. Further, this Bench also has taken a similar view in the case of Jagdishbhai Mohanbhai Vidja Vs. State of Gujarat and others vide order dated 07.11.2016 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.634 of 2016. Both the above judgments also support the case of the respondents.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons assigned by us we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant following the judgment in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others (supra). It is needless to observe that the fact situation exactly fits into the view taken by this Court in the case of Chorvad Gram Panchayat & others Vs. Ramniklal Dahrshi Shah & others (supra). In Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal filed by the appellant so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost."

4.2 Though the petitioner has raised various submissions in support of his prayers and affidavit- in-reply is also filed by the respondents with set of contentions, it could not be disputed by the respondents that the issue is now covered by the decision of Apex Court in Una Nagarpalika v. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana being Civil Appeal No.5529 of 2016 decided on 20th September, 2018. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel [2018 (2) GLH 454] has also dealt with the same issue.

5. In Kaliben Balubhai Makwana (supra), the group of Civil Appeal Nos.5529 of 2016 and others dealt with by the Supreme Court, arose from judgment and order dated 06th October, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1122 of 2015, the appellant Municipality had declined to grant pensionary benefits to the employees who are the employees of erstwhile Panchayat converted into Nagar Palika. The Apex Court considered the decision of Chief Officer v. Mohamad Irshad Husenbhai Baloch [2011 (1) GCD 569 (Guj) (D.B.) to dismiss the batch of appeals before it. 5.1 The appellant Una Municipality had contended before the Apex Court that there was a distinction between the employees who were originally working with the Panchayat and later on, upon conversion of Panchayat into the Municipality, had became the employees of the Municipality by virtue of its merger, and the employees, who are directly appointed by the Municipality.

5.1.1 The Apex Court held as under.

"The Division Bench was of the view and, in our view, rightly that the distinction sought to be made between the two groups of employees, namely, one Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER coming from the panchayat and then becoming the Municipal employees and the other directly becoming the Municipal employees was held to be of no significance because the appellant made the respondents members of the GPF contributions and went on to deduct regular contribution from their salary till the date of their retirement." (Para 23) "In our view, the case at hand is covered by the earlier decision rendered in the case of Chief Officer v. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and others (supra) which stands upheld by this Court by order dated 16.09.2013. We are also of the view that the aforementioned distinction pointed out by the appellant for coming out of the clutches of the decision of Chief Officer v. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and others (supra) was also rightly found untenable by the High Court by assigning the proper reasons." (Para 24) "Keeping in view the aforementioned four undisputed facts arising in the case coupled with the decision rendered in the case of Chief Officer v. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and others (supra), which has attained finality, and was then given effect to in relation to concerned Municipal employees holding them eligible and entitled to claim the pension and the pensionary benefits, we find no good ground to take any other view than the one taken by the writ court and the Division Bench in the impugned order." (Para 25) 5.2 In Chandubhai Chhotabhai Patel (supra), the Division Bench was dealing with the set of appeals preferred by the State and the Panchayat authorities. The stand of the appellants were that since the employees concerned were part of the non-converted Panchayat and their appointments were in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, they could not be extended pensionary dues. The Division Bench took into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal Soni [AIR 1984 SC 161] as well as in Harijan Paniben Dudabhai v. State of Gujarat being Civil Appeal No.441 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C) No.2324 of 2010 to conclude as under.

C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER "11. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and the Gujarat Panchayat Act bring out the following scenario: (A) Prior to 1/4/1963 the Gram Panchayat/Village Panchayat as per Section 9 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 was a Body Corporate by the name of "the Village Panchayat of....." having a perpetual succession and a common seal. (B) The Sarpanch had the power vested in him to take actions in implementation of the Panchayat's duties through Resolutions.

(C) Section 61 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 provided that the Panchayat may appoint such servants as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its duties under this Act and pay salaries from the Village Fund.

(D) Till the promulgation of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 w.e.f 1.04.1963 therefore the Village Panchayat was competent to appoint its servants/officers and act through Resolutions. The appointment of the Respondent made under such provisions was therefore valid and in accordance with the prevalent law in force, prior to the coming into force the provisions of Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act,1961 and the Rules thereunder. Therefore it was not a case where the prior sanction of the Development Commissioner or the State was inevitably a sine-qua non. No such provision existed. That the Panchayat in discharge of its duties under Section 45 of the Bombay Act, through its Resolution of the Sarpanch appointed the Respondent herein. That such appointment was on a sanctioned post was not a germane consideration as it was so presumed to be in accordance with law and therefore the appointment could not have been termed to be irregular or illegal.

(E) In the case of Harijan Paniben (supra) also, considering the question of appointment of servants prior to the 1961 Act which came into force on 1/4/1963, there was no question of a distinction being drawn on the appointment being on a sanctioned post or not, and therefore the Division Bench Judgement in the case of Dahyabhai Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER (Supra) would, in our opinion, made a distinction and dismissed the Petition of the employee on the ground that the appointment was not on a sanctioned post, would not be in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Harijan Paniben (supra) and the judgement of the Constitution Bench in R.K.Soni (supra). It categorically held that all such employees carried a common birth mark and therefore to hold that the appointment was not on a sanctioned post or that it was irregular or that the Panchayat employee belonged to a nonconverted gram panchayat could not have been held to be against the respondent as that would lead to a microscopic discrimination which was set aside by the Judgement of the Constitution Bench in the case of R.K.Soni (supra).

(F) Referring to the decision in the case of G.L.Shukla (supra) reaffirmed in R K Soni (supra), the inevitable conclusion that is culled out is that the State is the master. Panchayat Service is a distinct and separate service set up for serving the Panchayat Organization of the State and it is as much a civil service of the State as the State Service. The State can have many services such as State Service, Police Service, Engineering Service etc. and Panchayat Service is one of them. In the Panchayat Service, as in the State Service, the State is the master and every officer or servant employed in the Panchayat Service is the servant of the State and not of the Panchayat under which he may be serving for the time being. The Panchayat Service is one single service with the State as the master.

12. Accordingly, we hold that the objections of the State and the Panchayat Authorities in the appeals on their behalf of denying the pensionary benefits to the Respondent amount to setting at naught an established and a settled principle of law as decided in the case of R K Soni (supra). The Respondent who served the Gram Panchayat is entitled to be granted pensionary benefits like pension and gratuity and other benefits that go hand in hand with the terminal benefits available to any other employee of the State who so retires. The appellants are, therefore, directed to pay the Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER pensionary benefits to the employee within a period of eight weeks from today."

6. The employees, as the petitioner is, who became the employees of the Municipality having been originally appointed in the erstwhile Gram Panchayat or Nagarpalika, are entitled to be considered their services so as to include the services rendered under the Panchayat. They are accordingly entitled for pension. However, question cropped up as to which authority, whether the state government or municipality would be liable to pay the pension and other retirement benefits. This controversy was set to rest by the Division Bench of this court in Mariyaben vs. State of Gujarat being Misc. Civil Application No. 425 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 12181 of 2015 wherein it was recorded that liability to pay the pension is upon the State.

7. In the aforesaid view, the present petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is required to be treated as eligible for pension and the higher pay grade on the basis of length of his services may also be paid to him to calculate and revise the pension accordingly. The respondent state and its authorities are directed to immediately process the case of the petitioner for pension and after completing the formalities sanction and release the amount of pension within three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and shall further pay other retirement benefits as admissible to the petitioner as directed above after giving effect to the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as may be admissible alongwith accrued arrears."

3.2 Even the Supreme Court in the case of Una Nagar Palika vs. Kaliben Balubhai Makwana, reported in JT 2018(9) SC 336, laid that the petitioners are entitled to pensionary benefits.

4 In accordance with the case law, therefore, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant pension and Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020 C/SCA/4894/2019 ORDER other retiral benefits to the petitioner forthwith in accordance with the law laid down by this Court. In the aforesaid view, the present petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is required to be treated as eligible for pension and the higher pay grade on the basis of length of his services may also be paid to him to calculate and revise the pension accordingly.

The respondent state and its authorities are directed to immediately process the case of the petitioner for pension and after completing the formalities sanction and release the amount of pension within three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order and shall further pay other retirement benefits as admissible to the petitioner as directed above after giving effect to the 6th Pay Commission recommendation as may be admissible along with accrued arrears. If the amount of arrears is not paid within the time stipulated above, it shall carry interest @7% from the date of filing of the petition. The petition is allowed accordingly.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 16 23:19:23 IST 2020