Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Union Of India & Anr vs D.V.S.Prabhakar Rao & Anr on 9 August, 2018

Author: M. S. Sonak

Bench: M. S. Sonak

                                                                  J-os-wp-2541-01




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 2541 OF 2001

 Union of India and anr.                           ...Petitioners
      Versus
 D.V.S. Prabhakar Rao and anr.                     ...Respondents

 Ms S.I. Shah i/b S.I. Shah & Co. for the Petitioners
 Mr. A.I. Bhatkar for Respondent No.1.

          CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. &
                  M. S. SONAK, J.
          DATE : 09.08.2018.

 ORAL JUDGMENT:

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The issues raised in this petition are covered by the issues raised in Writ Petition No. 2720 of 2001. By separate judgment and order, we have dismissed Writ Petition No.2720 of 2001 and therefore, on the same basis, even the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 3] However, Ms S.I. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that there was no justification for award of interest in favour of respondent No.1. She submits that the impugned judgment and order to the extent it awards interest may be interfered with.

        D.S.Sherla                                              page 1 of 2



::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2018              ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2018 01:36:34 :::
                                                                          J-os-wp-2541-01



 4]       Mr. Bhatkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1,

submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai has not awarded any interest on the stepped up pay, which is referred to as a disputed pay. The interest has been awarded only upon the undisputed pay and that too, since, there was delay in releasing pensionary benefits to respondent No.1.

5] Taking into consideration the aforesaid submission of Mr. Bhatkar, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Since, there was no valid reason to delay the payment of retiral benefits to respondent No.1 and that too on the basis of undisputed pay, the award of interest is not liable to be interfered with. 6] For the aforesaid reasons, Rule is discharged. The interim relief, if any, is vacated. There shall however, be no order as to costs.

7] The pending notices of motion, if any, do not survive and the same are disposed of.



 (M.S. SONAK, J.)                         (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




        D.S.Sherla                                                     page 2 of 2



::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2018                     ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2018 01:36:34 :::