Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Satya Ram Katheria on 18 August, 2017
1 W. A. No. 365/ 2017
(The State of M.P. & Others Vs. Satya Ram Katheria)
18.08.2017
Shri N.S. Kirar, learned Government Advocate for
the appellants/ State.
Heard on admission.
State of Madhya Pradesh and it's functionaries
take exception to order dated 31.01.2017 passed in Writ
Petition No.4091/2016 whereby learned Single Judge on
a finding that there is unexplained delay in settling the
arrears in favour of the petitioner.
Evidently, petitioner (present respondent) retired
on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2007 from the post of Assistant Superintendent, Commercial Tax Department. That, much prior to his retirement, he had approached the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A. No.2474/1999 which was transferred to this High Court and registered as W.P. No.4703/2003. The said Writ Petition was decided on 04.12.2004, whereby his claim for two increments was allowed. The respondent- State was directed to settle the monetary claim within three months. That instead of settling the monetary claim within three months, the same was settled on 27.11.2009, i.e. after a period of over four years. That leave encashment was settled in the year 2010 and 2012. The difference of 6 th pay commission, gratuity and difference of pension was also belatedly settled in the year 2011. There was no plausible explanation for delayed settlement which led the Single Judge allow the petition filed by the petitioner for interest on delayed payment and has directed the State to pay simple interest on delayed payment @ 8% per annum.
2 W. A. No. 365/ 2017(The State of M.P. & Others Vs. Satya Ram Katheria) Since no cogent explanation has been tendered by the respondents for delayed payment and being a model employer, it was incumbent upon the State to have settled the dues at the earliest within the time period of atleast six months from the date of retirement; grant of interest by impugned order on unexplained delayed payment cannot be faulted with. Rather we are of the considered opinion that Writ Appeal against said order is ill-advised because it is the State which is at fault in not settling retiral dues at the earliest. Therefore, while disposing this appeal, we are inclined to impose a cost on the State to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the society namely- High Court of Madhya Pradesh Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society, 2015. The cost may be recovered from the officials found responsible for not settling the dues of a retired person within time. Let the cost be deposited within one month from the date of communication of this order.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
@PK