In a writ petition concerning interest on delayed retirement benefits, the Single Judge held that the interest was not statutory. Dismissing the petition, the Court ruled there was no ground to interfere under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The petition was dismissed.
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 PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.17407 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 13, 2009
Dr. V.K. Mujral
.....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab & Others
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
The relief claimed is only in regard to interest allegedly payable on delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is not in dispute that the retiral benefits have been released.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the interest claimed is statutory in nature and payable under the Rules. I find that, in facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground to interfere in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek
alternate remedy in accordance with law.
(AJAI LAMBA)
November 13, 2009 JUDGE
avin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a ground to interfere under extraordinary writ jurisdiction for interest allegedly payable on delayed payment of retirement benefits.
Whether the interest claimed is statutory in nature and payable under the Rules.
Dr. V.K. Mujral
State of Punjab
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
