Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)S.K. Dua vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 9 January, 2008
In the matter of S.K. Dua versus State of Haryana,
(2008) 3 SCC 44, (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
considered the issue of interest on retiral dues and held
that if there are statutory rules occupying the field, the
appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such
rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines
or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may
claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the
absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or
guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of
13
OA 1024/2019
Item No.16/C-1
the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.M.L. Mehrotra Pathology Pvt. Ltd., ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ... on 30 August, 2023
In the matter of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P,
AIR 2000 (SC) 3513(2), (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
allowed 18% interest. Hon‟ble Supreme Court not only
accorded interest on GIS but also on encashment of leave,
gratuity, commuted pension etc., which is a binding
precedent.
R. Kapur vs Director Of Inspection on 29 September, 1994
In the matter of R. Kapur Vs Director of Inspection
decided on 29 September, 1994, interest was allowed. For
facility of reference, para 11 of the judgement is as under: -
Article 300 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Uma Agarwal vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 1999
In the matter of Uma Agrawal (Dr) v. State of U.P.,
(1999) 3 SCC 438, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that
delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and
must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring
even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a
prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases
where a retired government servant claims interest for
delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the
15
OA 1024/2019
Item No.16/C-1
time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart
from other relevant factors applicable to each case.
(emphasis added)
Section 19 in The Railways Act, 1989 [Entire Act]
Chitturu Siva Brahmaiah, vs Union Of India, on 11 December, 2018
He also rely on the
order dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
the Tribunal at Hyderabad in OA No. 59/2008 in
Brahmaiah vs. Union of India, and also the order dated
03.08.2018 passed in OA No. 021/00281/2016 in M.
Dharam Raj vs. Ministry of Defence.