Allowed

R.S.Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Mar 2022WPS/846/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a sub-engineer for delayed payment of 6th pay commission arrears. The court noted a 24-month delay and allowed interest at 9% for one year plus litigation costs. Respondents were directed to pay within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Interest of 13,985.28/- at 9% for one year and litigation cost of 10,000/- to be paid by Respondent 5 within four weeks.

R.S.Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

-1-

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 846 of 2012

¶5

R.S. Rathore, S/o late H.P. Rathore, aged about 53 years, R/o D.N.K. Colony Kondagaon, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶6

------Petitioner

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Development Commissioner, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

Jila Panchayat Bastar, through Chief Executive Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Kondagaon Division, Kondagaon, District Bastar Chhattisgarh

¶12

Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Darbha, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶13

------- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Dewangan, Advocate

¶15

For Respondents : Mr. G.I. Sharan, Govt. Advocate

¶16

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

ORDER

¶18

07/03/2022

¶19

Petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the inaction on the part of Respondents in not awarding interest on the arrears of amount payable to him which was paid after lapse of more than three years Further claimed compensation towards the mental, physical agony as also 25,000/- towards litigation charges.₹

¶20

Mr. Krishna Dewangan, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially posted as Sub-engineer at Janpad Panchayat, Darbha, on the date of filing of writ petition he was posted as Subengineer, Kondagaon (R.E.S.) Division District Bastar. Petitioner was not paid arrears of 6^th pay commission, travelling expenses and medical claims on time. He submitted representation before the

¶21

-2-

¶22

Respondents-authorities which was not considered and decided. Therefore, petitioner filed writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 1538/2010, which was disposed of directing the Collector, Bastar to examine grievance of petitioner and to decide his representation pending before Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha. The order dated 08.04.2010 passed in writ petition was not complied with which made the petitioner to file Contempt petition before this Court on 05.07.2011 bearing CONT. No. 251/2011. It was disposed of considering that the Collector has already issued instructions on 07.04.2011 to the Executive Engineer and CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha to decide the case of petitioner and the Collector has done what could be done by him. He contended that even after issuance of direction by this Court in the writ petition Respondents-authorities have not paid arrears of salary and other dues, Respondentsauthorities be directed to pay interest on the amount payable as also the balance of arrears of the amount.

¶23

Mr. G.I. Sharan, learned State counsel submits that the grievance raised by petitioner is against Respondent 5. In return, there is specific pleading about making payments of all the dues from the month of November 2010 to February 2011. As per the pleadings made by petitioner, the balance of arrears of 6^th pay scale was also received by him on 20.09.2011. As all the payments have been made to petitioner, he is not entitled for any amount towards interest and compensation towards mental and physical agony as also the expenses towards legal proceedings. He referred to documents Annexure R-2 and R-3 in support of his contention filed along with return by the State. He also pointed out that Respondent 5 in its return has categorically pleaded in paragraph 5 that there is no arrear of the amount towards 6^th pay scale and further some delay occurred on

¶24

-3-

¶25

account of objection raised by treasury department on the documents forwarded for making payment of arrears of 6^th pay scale to petitioner. Respondents-authorities have not withheld amount to be paid to petitioner with any ill intention but some delay occurred which was procedural.

¶26

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record of writ petition.

¶27

Perusal of documents enclosed along with writ petition would show that petitioner initially filed writ petition bearing WPS No. 1538/2010 on 06.04.2010 mentioning therein that he submitted several representations since 13.07.2009 followed by three more representations amongst which last representation was dated 04.11.2009 before the CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha. The said representation was not disposed of, hence, petitioner was forced to file writ petition which was disposed of on 08.04.2010 with a direction to Respondent-Collector to examine the grievance of petitioner, decide representation pending before CEO, Janpad Panchayat, Darbha. The payments of arrears of 6^th pay scale of 87,194/- was₹ paid on 20.09.2011 after delay of 24 months which is not denied. But Respondents themselves admitted that there was some delay in making payments of arrears of 6^th pay scale. Major portion of arrears of amount of 6^th pay scale was disbursed on 19.09.2011 whereas as per the submission of learned counsel for petitioner he was entitled for arrears in the year 2009. There is delay in making payments of arrears of 6^th pay scale, even after direction issued by this Court on 08.04.2010 in writ petition to consider his grievance. It is not the case of respondents that there is some lapse on the part of petitioner but admitted that there was some procedural delay. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I am of the view that petitioner will be entitled for the

¶28

-4-

¶29

interest for a period of 1 year. As the other amount towards the dues have been paid till December 2010, this Court is of the view that petitioner is not entitle for any interest on the said amount.

¶30

This Court is not satisfied with the reply submitted because the arrears of 6^th pay scale has not been paid to petitioner even after lapse of more than one year of issuance of direction to Respondentsauthorities in WPS No. 1538/2010, this shows that there was laxity on the part of employees of Janpad Panchayat in discharging their official duties.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons and considering that this Court has issued direction on 08.04.2010 to consider and decide the representation of petitioner wherein arrears of 68,198/- and 87,194/- of 6₹ ₹ th pay scale has been paid only on 19.09.2011, total of which comes to ₹ 1,55,392/-. The said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. for a period of 1 year which comes to 13,985.28/-. Petitioner will also be₹ entitled for 10,000/- towards litigation expenses considering that this₹ is third petition preferred by petitioner, first writ petition was filed on 06.04.2010 where direction was issued, thereafter contempt petition and now again this present writ petition.

¶32

For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is entitled for interest of 13,985.28/- as well as cost of litigation of ₹ ₹ 10,000/-. Respondent 5 is directed to pay the amount as quantified above within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Respondent 5 will be at liberty to recover the same from the salary of ailing employee in accordance with law.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

.P.a.w.a.n.

R.S.Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S.Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mahima Sharma Vs Gaurav Tyagi

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kejharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Jeevan @ Chhotu Sahu @ Jeevan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganeshi Bai Vs National Insurance Company Limited