Dismissed

Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CFA/318/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the trial court's decree. The court upheld the decision to pay the unpaid encashment amount of 60 days privilege leaves and the enhanced interest of 6% per annum ordered by the lower court, rejecting the department's challenge.

What did the court decide?

The department's appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment and decree were upheld; the plaintiff's second appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 287/2002

¶3

State of Rajasthan through Collector, Ajmer.

¶4

Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Department of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶5

Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Department of Commercial taxes, Ajmer.

¶6

Assistant Commissioner (Revision), presently Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer.

¶7

----Defendants-Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mahavir Prasad Maheshwari S/o late Shri Jai Narain, Retired Steno, commercial Taxes Department, at present r/o 355/9, Rajendra Pura Gali No.2, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer.

¶10

--- Plaintiff- respondent

¶11

Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶12

Additional Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Government of Rajasthan, Ajmer.

¶13

---- Proforma Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 318/2002

¶16

Mahavir Prasad Maheshwari S/o late Shri Jai Narain, Retired Steno, commercial Taxes Department, at present r/o 355/9, Rajendra Pura Gali No.2, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer (deceased)

¶17

1/1 Yogeshwar Maheshwari S/o Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari

¶18

1/2 Sarveshvar Maheshwari S/o Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari

¶19

1/3 Sashikala Mantri Wife of Kamal Kishsore Mantri

¶20

1/4 Pratibha Maheshwari wife of Jagdish Prashad

¶21

All r/o House No.555/9, Rajendrapura Gali No.2, Hathi Bhata, Ajmer (Raj)

¶22

----Appellants

¶23

Versus

¶24

State of Rajasthan through Collector, Ajmer.

¶25

Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Department of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶26

Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Department of Commercial taxes, Ajmer.

¶27

Assistant Commissioner (Revision), presently Commercial Taxes Officer (Revision), Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer. 5. Director State Insurance & Provident Fund Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶28

Additional Director, State Insurance & General Provident Fund Department, Ajmer,

----Respondents

(2 of 7)

[CFA-287/2002]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Choudhary for Mr. Rohit Choudhary Mr. Akshat Dewan & Mr. Ayush Singh for Mr. Punit Singhvi for the department For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Mantri, for the plaintiff

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶34

Judgment

¶35

18/08/2022

¶36

Appellant-defendants have preferred this first appeal (No.287/2002) assailing the judgment and decree dated 16.3.2002, in Civil Suit No.1/2000 by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Ajmer, whereby and whereunder a decree for Rs.14012/has been passed in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1.

¶37

The relevant facts are that plaintiff worked as Stenographer in the Department of Commercial Taxes and retired on 31.01.1996. At the time of retirement, he had privilege leaves 240 days in his account. He applied for encashment of Privilege leaves to defendant No.4 Assistant Commissioner (Revision), Commercial Taxes Department, Ajmer on 27.01.1996 but payment of the same was made on 22-3-1997 that too only for 180 days instead of 240 days and with a delay of one year, one month and seven days. Therefore the plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% p.a. on the amount for the delayed payment Rs.8883/-, Rs.14,012/- for 60 days privilege leaves and also the interest thereon Rs.11060/-. It was stated that since defendants were bound to pay the amount within

¶38

(3 of 7)

¶39

[CFA-287/2002]

¶40

fifteen days, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the interest on account of the delay caused by defendants.

¶41

Plaintiff further stated that he was an account holder of provisional fund No.107189 and regularly deduction from his salary was made but he has been paid only Rs.94,436/- and Rs.96/- has wrongly been deducted and that authority letter for payment of PF amount was sent on 21-11-1996 with a delay of nine months and seven days. Therefore, the plaintiff also claimed interest Rs.17,520/-. The suit was filed after serving legal notice dated 8-12-1998.

¶42

On issuing notice, defendants filed written statement and admitting service and superannuation of plaintiff stated that although the plaintiff had 240 days privilege leaves in his account but the Deputy Commissioner vide letter dated 16-1-1997 directed that for payment of 60 days leaves approval of Finance department has been sought, however vide order dated 27-11997 payment of 180 days leaves was made. Thereafter several letters were exchanged between departments and on receiving bill from Treasury on 9-7-1996 the plaintiff was called for receiving payments, but he did not turn up just to harass officers of the department. Prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

¶43

On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed four issues:

¶44

First, Whether plaintiff has been paid encashment of 180 days privilege leaves instead of 240 days at the time of his retirement and payment of 60 days leaves has remained due?

¶45

Second, Whether because of the delay in payment of encashment of privilege leaves, the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest @ 24% p.a. Rs.8,883/-? Similarly, on the

¶46

(4 of 7)

¶47

[CFA-287/2002]

¶48

due amount of 60 days privilege leaves Rs.14,012/-, the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest @ 24% p.a.? Third, Whether because of withholding amount of Provident fund for nine months and seven days, the plaintiff is entitled to received interest @ 24% p.a. Rs.17,520/-? Fourth, Relief?

¶49

Plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad examined himself as Pw.1 and exhibited documents. Defendants examined Dw.1 Mahendra Singh Kavia, Dw.2 Mukat Lal Thanvi, Dw.3 Tejmal Modi.

¶50

The plaintiff also submitted written arguments.

¶51

The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led by both parties.

¶52

6.1 On appreciation of evidence of both parties the trial court concluded that there were 240 days privilege leaves in the account of plaintiff but encashment of only 180 days was made and amount of 60 days privilege leaves Rs.14012/- was withheld. According to Rule 91B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the plaintiff was entitled to receive encashment of 240 days privilege leaves, and Dw.2 Mukat Lal Thanvi admitted in his evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to receive payment of 240 days privilege leaves. Consequently the issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

¶53

6.2 The trial court considering evidence of both parties concluded that the plaintiff has not shown any rule or provision for his entitlement for the interest @ 24% on due amount or for the delay in making payment of amount of privilege leaves and accordingly the issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff.

¶54

6.3 Issue No.3, regarding delay in payment of amount of Provident fund the trial court concluded that plaintiff applied for

¶55

(5 of 7)

¶56

[CFA-287/2002]

¶57

payment of amount of provident fund on 12-12-1995 for which authority letter was issued on 26-6-1996 (Ex.6) which was comprised of interest for the delay caused. Letter dated 9-7-1996 (Ex.7) and other letters dated 3-7-1996 (Ex.9) 9-9-1996 (Ex.12) and 6-11-1996 (Ex.17) were issued by the department to plaintiff for receiving the amount and finally vide banker cheque (Ex.2) the amount was paid to plaintiff. Consequently the issue No.3 was decided against the plaintiff.

¶58

6.4 In view of decision of issue No.1 in favour plaintiff the trial court held that department has wrongly withheld payment of 60 days privilege leaves Rs.14012/- to which the plaintiff was entitled and he was declared entitled to receive interest @ 6% p.a. from 7-12-1998 and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 16-3-2002.

¶59

Hence the department filed first appeal challenging the judgment and decree.

¶60

The plaintiff also filed first appeal challenging the judgment and claiming interest as prayed for.

¶61

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also other material available on record.

¶62

Issue No.1 :

¶63

According to Rule 91B of the Rajasthan Service Rules the plaintiff was entitled for encashment of 240 days privilege leaves and this fact has also been admitted by Dw.2 Mukat Lal Thanvi, still the plaintiff has been paid encashment of only 180 days leaves. As such the trial court has not committed any illegality in deciding the issue in favour of plaintiff.

(6 of 7)

[CFA-287/2002]

Issue No.2 :

11 The plaintiff failed to show any rule or provision for the entitlement of the interest @ 24% on due amount or for the delay in making payment of amount of privilege leaves, consequently the trial court has rightly decided the issue No.2 against plaintiff.

¶68

Issue No.3 :

¶69

The defendant vide Ex.6 dated 26-6-1996 proved that on filing application by plaintiff on 12-12-1995 for payment of amount of provident fund, authority letter was issued, which was comprised of interest for not paying the same within two months. Thereafter several letters dated 9-7-1996 (Ex.7), 3-7-1996 (Ex.9), 9-9-1996 (Ex.12) and 6-11-1996 (Ex.17) were issued to plaintiff for receiving the amount and finally vide banker cheque (Ex.2) the amount was paid to plaintiff. Consequently the trial court finding no intentional delay on the part of defendants has rightly decided the issue No.3 against the plaintiff.

¶70

Issue No.4 :

¶71

In view of the decision of issue No.1 in favour plaintiff the trial court has rightly concluded that the department has wrongly withheld payment of 60 days leaves Rs.14012/- to which the plaintiff was entitled and he has rightly been declared entitled to receive interest @ 6% p.a. from 7-12-1998. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree.

¶72

A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that admittedly the plaintiff had 240 days leaves in his account still the

¶73

(7 of 7) [CFA-287/2002]

¶74

department paid encashment of only 180 days, which fact has been admitted by department. Although they have relied on the letter of the Deputy Commissioner but failed to show any provision for withholding the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled. The trial court has simply directed to make payment of 60 days leaves. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Further, although the plaintiff claimed interest for the delay in the payment of some amount but he miserably failed to produce any rule or provision in this regard. Therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in declining the interest so claimed by plaintiff. The impugned judgment passed by the trial court requires no interference by this court and the same is upheld. There is no force in the first appeal filed by the department and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree be framed accordingly.

¶75

Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

¶76

Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.

¶77

In view of dismissal of appeal filed by department, plaintiffrespondents do not want to press their First Appeal (No. 318/2002), hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

¶78

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶79

Arn/47

Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Prasad Maheshwari v. State

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

Mool Chand Sharma Vs Babu Lal Sharma

Mahendra Kumar S/O Jawahar Mal Vs Narayan Lal S/O Nathuram

Smt. Deepika Saxena W/O Amit Saxena D/O Chandramohan Saxena Vs Amit Saxena S/O Shri V.K. Saxena

Smt.Kamla Vs Manohar Lal

State Vs Mahavir Prasad Maheshwari and or

Teerath Das S/O Shri Dharam Das Vs Tahaseem Khan S/O Shri Yasim Khan