Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Dinesh Chandra Gupta vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 March, 2019
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
1
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.9 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).36822/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-10-2017
in CMWP No. 63893/2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad)
DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(WITH I.R. and IA No.140975/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 26-03-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V.K. Shukla, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vedant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On 8 January 2019, the following order was passed by this Court:
“By a judgment of the High Court dated 16 January 2008, the termination of the petitioner was set aside.
The High Court held that though the petitioner would not be entitled to salary from 31 January Signature Not Verified 1979 until 23 April 1991, he would be treated in service and would be entitled to all Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.03.28 11:46:36 IST Reason: consequential service benefits. This order of the High Court has attained finality.
The grievance of the petitioner in the subsequent 2 writ petition was that he has been denied consequential service benefits by the UP Small Industries Development Corporation despite the order of the High Court.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation states that between the date when he was reinstated in service until the date of his superannuation the petitioner was paid his salary on the basis of the last drawn salary on the date of his termination.
This stand of the Corporation cannot prima facie be accepted as correct since the order of the High Court which has attained finality reinstating the petitioner in service held him to be entitled to all consequential service benefits.
In that view of the matter, we direct the second respondent to make a correct computation of all the consequential service benefits to which the petitioner was entitled between the date on which he was reinstated (23 April 1991) until the date of his superannuation.
The Corporation shall also re-compute the service benefits to which the petitioner is entitled on that basis, on his retirement.
This exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.
We direct the Managing Director of the UP Small Industries Development Corporation to file a personal affidavit setting out the computation after due verification of the amount in accordance with the above directions.” In pursuance of the order, an affidavit has been filed by the Managing Director, U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (UPSICL). The affidavit indicates that the dues payable to the petitioner have been re-computed and a cheque of Rs 13,23,037 has been forwarded to the petitioner on 31 January 2019.3
Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, acknowledges the receipt of the amount.
Our attention has been drawn to the order of the High Court dated 16 January 2008 in terms of which simple interest at 6% was liable to be paid after expiry of six months.
We are of the view that since there was a delay on the part of the U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. in paying the dues of the petitioner, he shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the dues which have been paid. The interest component shall be duly computed with effect from the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the High Court dated 16 January 2008 and the payment, that is outstanding, shall be made within one month from the date of this order.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER