Dismissed

Union of India and Anr. v. Narendra Dhar Dwivedi, (Retd.)

Bombay HC24 Sept 2012WP/3265/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's order directing the government to pay interest on delayed retiral dues. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the 'strong displeasure' notice was not a punishable action, thus exonerating the department, and relied on precedents to affirm the duty to pay interest on delayed gratuity, GPF, and pension due to inaction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union of India and Anr. Vs Narendra Dhar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

3265.12.12.doc

SQP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3265 OF 2012

¶5

Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Narendra Dhar Dwivedi (Retd.) ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Om Prakash Jha with Ms.Amrita Joshi i/b The Law Point for Petitioners.

¶7

Mr.Sandeep V.Marne for Respondent.

¶8

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED:- SEPTEMBER 24, 2012.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶11

Considering the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was complete inaction on the part of the Department to pay the retiral dues to the respondent and more particularly, when the communication of strong displeasure sent to the respondent was not envisaged as punishment in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, the delayed payment of the retiral dues such as commuted pension, leave encashment and gratuity has been held to be unjustified and unfair. In this backdrop, the Tribunal applying the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of

1/2

SQ Pathan

3265.12.12.doc

Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2002 SCC (L&S) 278 = (2001) 9 SCC 687, in our opinion, justly directed the Department to pay interest on the amount towards retiral dues paid to the respondent belatedly. No indulgence is warranted.

¶17

the argument of the counsel for the Department that statutory interest is provided only in respect of gratuity amount and on full exoneration, does not commend to us. In the first place, as aforesaid, the communication regarding strong displeasure is not notified as punishment within the meaning of Rule 11. In that case, the question of initiating any departmental action against the respondent did not arise and for the same reason, the question of exoneration or finding of guilt against the respondent would also not arise. It is not as if the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or authority in a given case, such as the present one to direct the Department to pay reasonable interest commensurate with the statutory interest provided for delayed payment of General Provident Fund (GPF) amount.

¶18

In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. Dismissed.

¶19

( SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

¶20

2/2

¶21

SQ Pathan

Union of India and Anr. v. Narendra Dhar Dwivedi, (Retd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union of India and Anr. v. Narendra Dhar Dwivedi, (Retd.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vishwas Baburao Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Sadashiv Ramayya Koli and Ors. Vs Shri. Ramchandra Jadhav Na Dors.

Alam Khanalias Kutub Alam and Ors. Vs Sayed Gaus Karim and Ors.