V. Poochappan vs / on 9 December, 2024
A similar
view has been taken by this Court in Abbas T.Vagh's case as well
(W.P.No.10490 of 2017, dated 30.09.2021). The facts of the present case
are also quite similar to the facts of the case that has been decided by this
Court in the above writ petitions. Therefore, the arguments of the
learned Government Advocate that the denial of solatium and interest
was proper and justified, in view of Section 3J of the National Highways
Act, being in force at the relevant point of time and the same cannot be
claimed by the petitioner, giving a retrospective effect, cannot be
countenanced. Therefore, the petitioner is clearly entitled to be paid the
additional benefits, by way of solatium and interest as claimed.