A former employee sought interest on retirement benefits awarded by a prior judgment which were paid without interest. The Court held the claim was barred as the issue should have been raised first and dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 31838 of 2015 (D)
PETITIONER(S):
T.SELVARAJ, EX BUDGE NO.6332 (FORMER ASSISTANT SALES MANAGER FACT) C/O.SL ARTHI HILARIAN, 67, BHEL OFFICERS LAYOUT SRK GARDENS, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.KAYALATT KUTTYKRISHNAN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN
RESPONDENT(S):
THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. UDYOGAMANDAL, 683501 REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 31838 of 2015 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2011 IN WPC.NO.23817/2003 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2011 IN WA.NO.1315/2011 OF THE DIVISION BENCH, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.12.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 28.03.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.05.2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.05.2015 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CMD OF THE RESPONDNET COMPANY
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A TO JUDGE
SB
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
====================== Dated this the 07th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's claim for interest was rejected by the management.
of misconduct, the petitioner, who was an Assistant Sales Manager, a Regional Manger and a Depot Manger were proceeded against for misconduct with respect to a cause of action arising from the very same incident, of having delivered goods to a dealer, whose cheques in satisfaction of earlier dues stood dishonoured.
2
W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
warning and barring of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed, before this Court. By Ext.P1 judgment, this Court found that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate, especially in view of the fact that the other persons were imposed with lesser punishment. It was noticed that both the Assistant Sales Manager and the Regional Manager were proceeded against for supervisory lapses and it was the Depot Manager, who had in fact delivered the goods without noticing the earlier dishonour of cheques. This Court set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement and since the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation; directed payment of the entire monetary benefits, which were to be disbursed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment. The judgment was dated 12.04.2011.
3
W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
in appeal, which resulted in Ext.P2 dated 02.12.2011. The petitioner is said to have been immediately paid the entire retirement benefits; ie:on 29-02-2012. Later on, the petitioner filed a representation at Ext.P4 dated 28.03.2012, seeking 12% interest for the payments made. The same was considered and rejected by the company on the ground that the judgments of this Court have not directed payment of any interest. The said order is produced at Ext.P5, and is dated 16.05.2012. The petitioner seeks to challenge that order in the above writ petition in the year 2015 after more than three years. The unexplained delay stands against the petitioner.
4
W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
case in which though the employee was retired from service on 30th June, 1998, the retirement benefits were not paid, on the ground that certain charge-sheets/show-cause notices were issued against the employee. The retired employee alleged that the proceedings were at the instigation of the Secretary, who was inimical to the employee for reason of certain complaints raised against him. Eventually the proceedings were dropped but after an elapse of four years; when the retirement benefits were paid. Noticing the delay thus occasioned, of four years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, found that in such circumstances the retiree could claim interest on the basis of statutory rules or administrative instructions and even in the absence of any of these under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also very relevant to notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision after declaring the law, remanded the matter for fresh consideration; which indicates that each case has to be considered on its merits as deducible from the individual facts.
5
W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
6
W.P.(C) No.31838 of 2015 - D
remedy is merged in the higher }. Further the question of delay also assumes significance, since an order of the year 2012 is sought to be challenged in a writ petition of the year 2015.
For all the above reasons, the writ petition is found to
be devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. No
costs.
Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/08/01/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee is entitled to claim interest on retirement benefits after the matter has been adjudicated and disposed of by this Court.
Whether the petitioner's claim for interest is barred by the principle of res judicata and inordinate delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and AnotherDistinguished¶42
S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and Another [AIR 2008 SCC 1077] · Who else cites this
T.SELVARAJ
THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
