HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 1255 OF 2009
D r Purshottam Rao Choudhary
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Another
...Respondents! Shri P S Koshy counsel for the petitioner
^ Shri Pankaj Shrivastava Panel Lawyer for the State
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 10/12/2009
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on this 10th day of December 2009
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to
the respondent authorities to grant interest on his
retrial dues, as the retrial dues have been paid to the
petitioner belatedly after 10 years.
3. The indisputable facts, in brief, for adjudication of
the case, are that initially the petitioner was appointed
as Assistant Surgeon by order dated 18-11-1977 (Annexure –
P/1). After completion of 20 years of service, the
petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and
accordingly he was retired from service w.e.f. 10-12-
1997.
4. As the full and final retrial dues have not been paid
to the petitioner, he preferred an original application
before the State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the
Tribunal”) being O.A.No.73/2001. After abolition of the
Tribunal, the original application was transferred to this
Court and the same was renumbered as W.P. (S) No.3525 of
2005.
5. During pendency of the petition, the State Government
released an amount of Rs.7,01,702/- (Rs.1,44,080/- towards
gratuity + Rs.5,57,622/- towards pension) in favour of the
petitioner without any interest in spite of the fact that
the said payment has been made to the petitioner after an
inordinate delay of about 10 years.
6. By order dated 3-3-2008 (Annexure – P/3) the writ
petition (S) No.3525 of 2005 was disposed of by this Court
and the matter was referred to the Pension Committee. In
compliance of the order passed by this Court, the
petitioner submitted representations before the Pension
Committee, which were disposed of by the Pension Committee
by order dated 8-10-2008 (Annexure – P/6) without any
interference, on the ground that the retrial dues have
already been paid to the petitioner.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that the Pension
Committee has not considered the prayer made by the
petitioner with regard to grant of interest on the delayed
payment. Again the petitioner submitted a representation
dated 8-12-2008 (Annexure – P/7) before the Department of
General Administration for grant of interest on the
delayed payment of retrial dues, but the same was not
considered and decided. Thus, this petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State
submits that due to pendency of W.P.(S) No. 3525 of 2005
the retrial dues could not be paid. Thus, the petitioner
is not entitled for interest on the ground of delayed
payment.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended
thereto.
10. It is an admitted position that the petitioner
retired from service voluntarily w.e.f. 10-12-1997, but
till 2006 the retrial dues were not paid to him without
any default on the part of the petitioner. It is not a
case of the respondents that there was any order during
pendency of the petition either by the Tribunal or by the
High Court restraining the respondents from paying the
legally admissible retrial dues to the petitioner. The
petitioner was deprived of his legal retrial dues for a
period of about 10 years and, as such, he is entitled to
interest thereon on account of delayed payment.
11. In a similar facts of case, the Supreme Court in S.K.
Dua v. State of Haryana & Another1 very specifically
observed that if the retrial benefits are given with delay
of years, then the employee would be entitled to interest
on such retrial benefits, in accordance with the rules and
even in absence of rules, employee can claim interest by
relying on Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of
India.
12. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/State is noticed to be rejected, as the
pendency of petition does not debar the State/respondents
to take a decision for payment of retrial dues, interest,
etc.
13. Applying the well settled principles of law and for
the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to
interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of
his voluntary retirement till the actual payment of
retrial dues, made by the respondent authorities to the
petitioner.
14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicated above. No order asto costs.
J u d g e