Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Vikram S/O Late Rajaram vs State Of U.P. Thru Secretary Revenue & ... on 4 January, 2010
1
Court No. 4
Writ Petition No.1840 (S/B) of 2008
Ramesh Chandra Vikram vs. State of UP and others
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the state respondents.
The petitioner was serving as Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo. He was dismissed from service on 16.1.1990. His appeal was rejected on 5.7.1990. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 357/F/I/1990 in the State Public Service Tribunal. The claim petition was allowed and while setting aside the order of dismissal the Tribunal by its judgment dated 12.1.1994 directed that the entire consequential benefits be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months. The State filed a Writ Petition in the High Court in which the High Court only stayed the contempt proceedings. The Writ Petition No. 5238 of 1994 was dismissed on 22.1.2002. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.1991. The petitioner thereafter filed another Contempt Petition No. 159 of 1992 on 17.5.2002 after which the State paid Rs. 39,297/- as arrears of salary in the month of October, 2002 and further a sum of Rs.48,775/- as arrears of pension and gratuity in the month of November, 2002.
The petitioner was aggrieved against the delayed payment of the arrears of pension and retirement benefits. The Writ Petition filed by him claiming interest was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. The petitioner filed a fresh claim petition No. 1345 of 2004 claiming interest. The claim petition was dismissed on 10.6.2008 on the ground that the petitioner had acquired cause of action to file the claim petition in the year 2002 when he received the payment, the last of which was made to him on 5.12.2002 and has filed the claim petition after two years in the year 2004. The claim petition was dismissed on 10.6.2008. The review petition was also dismissed on 22.10.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his reliefs in equity for payment of interest for the period immediately after the judgment of the Tribunal i.e. 12.1.1994 to October/November, 2002. It is contended by him that after setting aside the dismissal order the State was obliged in law to comply with the judgment of the Tribunal and to pay him the entire benefits of service. The delay is wholly attributable to the State and that the limitation should not be a ground to defeat the right in equity.
2Since all the facts are admitted, with the consent of parties we have finally heard the matter.
It is not denied that the petitioner was entitled to payment of entire consequential benefits after the dismissal order was set aside by the Tribunal on 12.1.1994. The Tribunal had specifically directed that the entire service benefits be paid to the petitioner, who had superannuated during the pendency of the claim petition in the Tribunal within three months from the date of judgment. The reasons for delay in payment were not given by the State in the reply filed in the Tribunal, nor there is anything to show that the delay was attributed to the petitioner. The interest is payable as compensation for the loss suffered by the retired employee for delayed payment, to which he was entitled. The relief in equity cannot be denied to the petitioner.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioner will be entitled to interest on the entire amount paid to him from 12.1.1994 upto the dates on which the amounts were paid in the year 2002, worked out at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum. The interest shall be worked out and paid to the petitioner within three months of service of the certified copy of order on the respondents.
Dt.4.01.2010 RKP/