Jammu & Kashmir High Court
State Of Jammu And Kashmir Through ... vs Sudershan Kumar Khajuria on 7 April, 2015
Author: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU LPASW No. 479 OF 2001 AND LPASW No. 232 OF 2002 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Director Funds Organization, Jammu. 3. Deputy Director Funds Organization, Jammu. 4. Chief Accounts Officer, District Fund Office, Gangyal, Jammu. 5. Accounts Officer, G.P.Fund Cell, Police Department, ZPHQ, Jammu. 6. Accounts Officer, Vigilance Office, Jammu Petitioners Sudershan Kumar Khajuria. Respondent ! Mr. S.K.Anand, Advocate ^ Mr. G.S.Thakur, Advocate for R-1 to 3. Mr. S.K.Shukla, Advocate for R-4 Honble Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge Date: 07.04.2015 :J U D G M E N T :
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, CJ
1. This condone delay application is filed seeking to condone the delay of 327 days in preferring LP appeal against the order made in SWP No.178 of 2011 dated 31.1.2014.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay it is stated that the Judgment of this Court 2 was passed on 31.1.2014 and the time for filing appeal expired on 30.4.2014. It is further stated that copy of the order was received by Police Cell from the Director General, J&K Fund Organisation, Jammu on 5.3.2014 and it was examined by the Joint Director, Divisional Fund Office and thereafter referred to the Law Department for the grant of sanction to file LPA. Sanction was granted only on 20.1.2015, which was conveyed to the department on 29.1.2015 and thereafter the matter was discussed with the learned Additional Advocate General on 5.2.2015 and after preparation of papers the same were presented on 22.3.2015, and thereby the delay of 327 days had occurred.
3. From the above pleadings it is clear that the order copy was received by the appellant on 5.3.2014, whereas sanction was obtained only on 20.1.2015. The particulars as to when the order was forwarded to the Joint Director, Law Department and why there was delay for the sanction to file LPA i.e, for about 10 months have not been explained. The said delay being unexplained, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay of 327 days in preferring the appeal.
4. Even though condone delay petition alone was listed before us, Mr. H.A.Siddiqui, learned Additional Advocate General was permitted to argue the matter on merits also. The grievance of the respondent before the learned single Judge 3 was that the respondent retired as Accounts Officer, J&K Vigilance Organization, Jammu on 31.5.2005 and the contribution made by him to his GPF account was paid to him only on 23.7.2007. Hence he has prayed for payment of additional amount as interest at market rate, i.e., Rs.5,48,066/- upto the date of payment.
5. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General was that there was delay on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner in submitting the papers and therefore delay is attributable to the respondent and as per Rule 20 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, Vol. II Appendix XVI-A, if an application is not made within a period of six months, or two years, the fund is not to earn any interest, even though interest is payable under Rule 7.
6. We have perused the documents filed along with the appeal. It is ascertained that the application was submitted by the writ petitioner on 23.11.2005 and his date of retirement is mentioned as 31.5.2005.That being the position, the department was not justified in contending that the application was not submitted by the respondent within six months, as six months period expired only on 30.11.2005.
7. At this juncture, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the application submitted was defective and 4 certain particulars were called for and therefore there was delay.
8. The said reason cannot be cited as a valid reason to deny interest, as Rule 7 specifically contemplates payment of interest for the belated payment. Respondent having submitted application claiming GPF deposits within six months of his retirement, the learned single Judge was right in allowing the writ petition. The delay in processing the application at the office of the appellants cannot be the valid reason to deny interest to the respondent.
9. Interest for delayed payment of terminal benefits was ordered in the following decisions:
(i) In 2000 (2) SLR 686 (Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P.), the Honble Supreme Court ordered to pay 18% interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment of all the retirement dues.
(ii) In 2002 (7) SLR 760 (Government of A.P. v. C.Purushotham) a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered 12% interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits.
(iii) Same is the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in 2003( 2) SLR 326 (H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro 5 Industries Corporation Ltd) and (2001) 6 SCC 591 (Gorakhpur University v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra).
(iv) In (2006) 6 SCC 455 (Union of India v. M.S.Abdulla) the Supreme Court ordered 12% interest per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits for a person, who voluntarily retired from service.
(v) In (2008) 3 SCC 44 (S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana) the Apex Court held that even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the above cited decisions, even on merits we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge and the said order is affirmed. This condone delay application is dismissed.
(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) (N. Paul Vasanthakumar)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu,
08.04.2015
Anil Raina, Secy