Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M C Smt Gulabi Devi vs Smt Vimla Devi Tiwari And Ors on 23 November, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18682/2012 The Managing Committee, Smt. Gulabi Devi Bidawatjika Girls Senior Secondary School, Sikar Vs. Smt. Vimla Devi Tiwari & Ors. Date of Order : 23rd November, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Dr.Vikram Singh Nain, for the petitioner/s. BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.09.2012 whereby direction is issued to extend the benefits of leave encashment, gratuity and revised pay scale to the respondent-employee with interest @ of 6 percent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that award of interest is illegal, moreso when, grant of selection scale has not been sanctioned by the State Government, thus the impugned order may be set aside to the extent of direction for award of 6 percent interest on the due payment. It is stated that in the similar cases, this Court has granted interim order and thereupon, direction for interest was set aside.
I have considered the submissions made and perused the record.
So far as grant of benefits of revised pay scale, gratuity and leave encashment are concerned, no challenge is made to the aforesaid. The only challenge is made to award of interest. I find no illegality in the award of interest @ of 6 percent. An employee was entitled for certain benefits as indicated by the Tribunal, however, petitioner management did not extend those benefits, thus employee was compelled to approach Tribunal. The cost of litigation has not been awarded in favour of the respondent-employee but interest at the meagre rate has been awarded. I do not find any illegality because delay in making payment is by the petitioner management, thus it should always attract the interest and revised pay scale is not subject to sanction of the Government.
So far as other cases are concerned, therein undertaking was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner/s for making payment within four months if interim order is granted in regard to the interest. This Court issued notices taking note of the statement of counsel. It was to avoid further litigation of execution and delay for payment. Later on, counsel for employee appeared and stated that he is not eager to get interest, thus an agreed order was passed.
In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner/s was asked to give similar undertaking for making payment within four months but it was declined, accordingly the writ petition has been decided on merits and is not similar to what has been decided in other cases.
Accordingly, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.46 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.