Lalji Kewat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63619

Court No. - 18

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1359 of 2024 Petitioner :- Lalji Kewat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jyotinjay Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

¶6

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 15.09.2023 whereby representation of petitioner for grant of interest on delayed payment of service benefits has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the twin grounds taken in the impugned order for rejection of petitioner's pay for interest is that firstly, there is no provision for payment of interest on arrears and secondly, no delay has occasioned on the part of opposite parties regarding payment of service benefits.

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shripati Tripathi (Dead) By LRs versus State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2011 (128)FLR 595 to submit that once it is admitted that arrears and service benefits due to an employee are not paid within a reasonable time, he would be entitled for payment of interest thereupon.

¶9

Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of counter afÏdavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the grounds indicated in the impugned order as well as in the counter afÏdavit. It is submitted that petitioner was initially appointed as a Class IV employee in the Post Graduate College, Patti, Pratapgarh on 05.11.1975 and superannuated on 30.11.2018 but during the course of his services, he was terminated from service after suspension by the College concerned whereafter he was reinstated on 11.08.2000. It is submitted that 5th & 6th revised pay-scales where thereafter allocated to

¶10

petitioner by means of orders dated 09.04.2016 and 23.01.2017 and after allocation of budget, actual payment thereof was ensured on the basis of pay bill dated 15.02.2018. It is therefore submitted that there is no legal provision in Service Regulations requiring payment of interest on such service benefits, there was no delay on the part of opposite parties.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the counter afÏdavit filed by the Regional Higher Education OfÏcer, Lucknow, it is evident from a perusal of paragraphs 5 to 9 & 17 thereof that service benefits pertaining to revised pay-scale in accordance with 5th Pay Recommendations became due on 01.01.1996 and as per 6th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006 for which orders were passed on 09.04.2016 and 23.01.2017 respectively. It also transpires from averments made in the counter afÏdavit that thereafter budget for payment of arrears from 01.10.1995 till 31.12.2015 were allocated by the Directorate on 22.12.2017.

¶12

There is absolutely no explanation in the counter afÏdavit as to why it took opposite parties 10 years to pass orders for payment of benefits, which even otherwise admittedly had accrued in petitioner's favour on 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006. Even assuming that petitioner was not entitled for the revised pay-scale as on 01.01.1996 since he was under termination of service but admittedly he was reinstated by the College on 11.08.2000. It is not the case of opposite parties that thereafter reinstatement on 11.08.2000, there was any disruption in services rendered by petitioner.

¶13

In view of aforesaid made in the counter afÏdavit, it is quite evident that the benefit accrued to petitioner as indicated in paragraph 6 of the counter afÏdavit have been paid after a delay of almost 10 years.

¶14

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shripati Tripathi (Dead) By LRs versus State of U.P. & Ors . has held as follows:-

¶15

"11. The Punjab and Haryana High Court and this Court have, followed the aforesaid judgments.

¶16

The principles, which can be culled out from the aforesaid judgments are that where State employer is not able to justify delay in payment of arrears of salary, settlement of retiral dues or terminal benefits, and it is found by the Court that the delay is wholly attributable to the State employer, the interest on such arrears of pay, pension and other retiral dues payable under the statutory rules, or even if they are not covered by statutory rules, must be paid to such employee. The reasonable period has been fixed by the Supreme Court of two months. If all the required documents duly completed have been submitted and that the State has delayed the amount of arrears of retiral dues or terminal benefits, the State employer is liable to pay interest on such delay, ordinarily at the rate of 12% simple interest per annum, unless the interest is quantified by the statutory rules. This interest paid is as penalty not only for mitigating the hardships suffered in depriving the employee of his right to receive the amount due to him within reasonable period of time and also on the right to life,guaranteed under Art.21 of the Constitution of India."

¶17

It is thus evident that interest is the natural accredition of any principal amount required to be paid to a person. The aspects are also covered under the Interest Act, 1978 in which principles for payment of interest thereupon has been indicated.

¶18

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and admitted case, opposite parties are directed to make payment of simple interest on the arrears of service benefits to petitioner @ 6% per annum with effect from the date they were due till the date of actual payment.

¶19

Actual payment thereof shall be ensured by the opposite parties within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this is produced before the concerned authority.

¶20

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed . Parties to bear their own costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Subodh/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalji Kewat v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalji Kewat v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Education (Secondary) and 4 Others

Ganga Sagar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecommunication Ministry Communication, New Delhi and 2 Others

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Tele Communications Ministry New Delhi and 2 Others

C/M , Kanya Junior High School Thru. Manager Sri Jiya Lal Vishwakrma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education and 2 Others

Punit Kumar Mishra Vs Chairman Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko and 5 Others

Smt. Shruti Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others