Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.61 seconds)
Bhairon Prasad Verma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. on 25 September, 2019 cites

State Of Kerala And Ors vs M. Padmanabhan Nair on 17 December, 1984

In the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair and Som Prakash, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Apex Court observed that prompt payment of retirement benefits is the duty of the Government and any failure in that direction will entail the Government liable to pay penal interest to the government servant. In that case, the Supreme Court, finding that there was delay in disbursement of the terminal benefits, directed the respondents therein to disburse the pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 545 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

D.D.Tewari (D) Thr. Lrs vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... on 1 August, 2014

In a more recent decision in D D Tewari Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, the Supreme Court observed that any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof is to be visited with penalty of payment of interest. Hence, interest @ 9% on delayed payment was awarded to be paid within six weeks failing which interest @ 18% p.a. would need to be paid. An erroneous withholding of gratuity amount to which the employee is legally entitled, entails penalty on the delayed payment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 155 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Gorakhpur University & Ors vs Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra & Ors on 7 August, 2001

In the case of Gorakhpur University vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, reported in 2001 (92) SCSLJ 247, the post-retiral dues of the Professor of the University had been withheld on the ground that the Professor has retained the University's accommodation after his retirement. The Apex Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. The Apex Court has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 166 - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 14 August, 2013

22. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cases to the facts of this case, there is a delay of around 8 years in settling the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner. Such a delay is attributable on the part of the respondents. The audit objection was raised way back in the year 2002, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.1.2003 to which petitioner had already tendered reply. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation way back in the year 2009 and since then eight long years have elapsed but still it is said that the terminal benefits and pension could not be paid due to pendency of audit objection. It is contended by the respondents that the delay has occurred due to an audit objection. Such a contention on the part of the respondents cannot be countenanced. This Court is of the view that the delay on the part of the respondents in settling the withheld portion of the terminal benefit and pension payable to the petitioner for about 9 years purportedly due to audit objection cannot be accepted that too when the excess amount has already been recovered from the dues of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 722 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1