Allowed

Vishram Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication New Delhi and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2024WRIA/10288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition holding that interest on delayed leave encashment payment is payable. The respondents were directed to pay interest at 7% per annum from retirement date till actual payment within four months, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay interest at 7% per annum on leave encashment for the period 30.06.2014 to 30.12.2019 within four months.

Vishram Prasad Sonkar vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10288 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vishram Prasad Sonkar Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Telecommunication New Delhi And 2 Others

¶2

Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshay Kumar Singh,Arun Singh,Palak Jawa Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Nidhi Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard Ms. Palak Jawa, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1/Union of India and Ms. Nidhi Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

¶5

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner has been paid the leave encashment, the interest on delay has not been paid and thus, he is entitled to interest from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2014 till actual payment on 30.12.2019 Learned counsel for the respondent argues that a circular has been issued by respondent no.2 saying that no interest shall be paid on the delayed payment of leave encashment as it is not a statutory payment.

¶6

In the light of the said, learned counsel for the respondent argues that no interest is payable as demanded by the petitioner.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nand Lal v. Indian Telephone Industries Limited and 2 Ors. (Writ - A No.31490 of 2016) decided on 09.03.2018 wherein a similar issue was considered and decided by this Court and the interest was held to be payable on account of delay.

¶8

It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that in a similar case, this Court in Writ Petition No.20927 (SS) of 2021 has called for a counter affidavit. It is further informed that SLP(C) No.004379 of 2019 against a similar order passed by this Court, is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶9

Considering the fact that the decision has been taken only on the ground that the dues of leave encashment are not statutory dues, as such, no interest is payable, the same is liable to be rejected on the simple analogy that interest is a natural accreditation of capital. Even otherwise, the payment of leave encashment flows out of the decisions taken and thus, cannot be said that it has no flavour of statutory enactment.

¶10

Thus, following the judgment in the case of Nand Lal (Supra), the writ petition is allowed.

¶11

Respondents are directed to ensure payment of interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the leave encashment for the period 30.06.2014 till 30.12.2019.

¶12

The said interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of four months.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.11.2024/Pachhere/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishram Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunication New Delhi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amita Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others

Salman Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Ankit Kumar Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko and 3 Others

Rama Shanker @ Rama Shankar Mishra vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Telecomm. Mini. of Communi. New Delhi and 2 Others

Satya Prakash Chaturvedi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 5 Others

Kushendra Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and Another