Dismissed

A.P.Transco v. Pilaka Appalaraju

Telangana HC18 Sept 2013AS/265/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an appeal filed by appellants against a decree awarding interest on delayed retirement benefits. The Court held that while the plaintiff delayed submitting pension papers, the refusal to pay terminal benefits unduly, necessitated litigation. Consequently, the lower court's award of 7% interest for six months under Government policy (G.O.Ms.No.268) was upheld, and the app

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit is dismissed; no order as to costs.

A.P.Transco Vs Pilaka Appalaraju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.265 of 2012

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants 3 and 5 aggrieved by the decree granted in favour of the first respondent by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, in O.S.No.267 of 2006, dated 08.07.2010.

¶5

The brief facts are that the first respondent/plaintiff having worked in the first appellant retired on 31.07.2006. He had submitted pension papers but his terminal benefits were not settled. According to the plaintiff, he had filed a writ petition before this Court seeking promotion, hence, intentionally his terminal benefits were deliberately withheld. He has, therefore, issued a legal notice, dated 21.10.2006, and since the amounts were not paid, he filed the present suit seeking retirement benefits together with interest on delayed payment at the rate of 24% per annum. His retirement benefits were mentioned in the plaint as Rs.3,50,000/- towards gratuity, Rs.4,50,000/- towards provident fund and Rs.2,00,000/- towards leave salary aggregating to Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶6

The defendants which include the appellants filed a common written statement denying the allegations and stated that one year prior to retirement, the first respondent/plaintiff was given prior intimation informing the date of retirement and requesting him to submit pension papers at least six months prior to the date of retirement. The employee, however, did not

¶7

submit the pension papers in time. It is also stated that the first respondent/plaintiff has already received Rs.2,56,635/- under an account payee cheque, dated 10.08.2006, and he has also received a sum of Rs.10,73,632/- as against the suit claim of Rs.10,98,666/-. The first respodnent/plaintiff was already paid a sum of Rs.13,39,267/-. It was also stated that the entitlement of the first respondent/plaintiff towards gratuity is Rs.3,18,000/-, towards provident fund is Rs.2,65,635/- and towards leave salary for 259 days is Rs.2,12,466/-. It was also stated that though the first respondent/plaintiff retired on 31.07.2006, he submitted his pension papers only on 06.01.2007. Hence, the latches or delay is actually on the part of the first respondent. Another additional ground was urged that though the first respondent was an employee of AP Transco, instead of drawing pension from AP Transco he wrongly opted for seeking pension from the first defendant-APEPDCL.

¶8

The Court below framed as many as four issues.

¶9

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest?

¶10

2. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct?

¶11

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties?

¶12

4. To what relief?”

¶13

After considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-19 marked on behalf of the plaintiff and evidence of DWs1 and 2 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 marked on behalf of the defendants, the learned trial Judge gave findings on Issue No.1 that since the first respondent was already paid the amounts of terminal benefits under various heads, he is entitled to interest

¶14

on delayed payment. The Court below, therefore, found that as against the admitted payment of Rs.7,95,466/-, the defendants are liable to pay interests on the delayed payment at the rate of 7% per annum from August, 2006 to January, 2007. In view of that, therefore, the suit was decreed to that extent with proportionate costs. This appeal is preferred by the appellants primarily aggrieved to the extent of imposing liability of interest on the appellants.

¶15

Mr. P. Lakshma Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellants submits that in spite of prior intimation of one year given to the first respondent before his superannuation, he has neither filed pension papers nor has submitted any application for terminal benefits. It is also on record that though the first respondent retired on 31.07.2006, he submitted pension papers only on 06.01.2007 and admittedly, the benefits were already been released to him. Even when he filed the suit, he received Rs.2,56,635/- towards leave salary under an account payee cheque, dated 10.08.2006. Hence, it cannot be said that there is any negligence or delay on the part of the defendants and thereby, the award of interest of the Court below is not justified.

¶16

The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand submits that the interest awarded is only for a period of six months which hardly works out to Rs.28,000/- and keeping in view that the first respondent was driven to file a suit, to contest the same and got a decree after litigation for four years fully justifies the claim for interest. The learned counsel also states that on the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference by this Court is warranted.

¶17

The only point for consideration that arises is whether the Court below was justified in awarding interest as mentioned above.

¶18

It is no doubt true that the first respondent took his own time in filing his pension papers which itself is almost after five months of his retirement. He further opted for the payment of pension through first defendant, though he was employee of AP Transco. Technically, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants appears justified that the interest liability placed on the appellants for delayed payment is only the making of the first respondent himself. It is, however, to be noted that the first respondent had to fight out litigation in the form of the present suit, which could have been avoided by the defendants including the appellants herein. The Court below, therefore, rightly considered that the delayed payment of retirement benefit even as per the Government policy under G.O.Ms.No.268, dated 07.10.1986, attracts interest at 7% per annum if the delay is more than three months but less than one year. The learned counsel for the appellants is, however, right in submitting that the provident fund amount is payable by the provident fund authority and the liability of interest thereon could not have been imposed on the appellants/defendants 3 and 5.

¶19

The trial Court has considered that the interest on the retirement benefit of Rs.7,95,466/- deserves to be granted at the same rate of 7% in terms of the Government policy for the period from August, 2006 to January, 2007.

¶20

Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and particularly keeping in view that the first

¶21

respondent employee having retired on 31.07.2006, has been granted benefit of interest in terms of Government policy for a period of six months, it is not just and appropriate to interfere with the suit decree especially as the said decree would works out to be a benefit of hardly Rs.28,000/- to the first respondent and first respondent had to pursue suit for four years after retirement and the present appeal thereafter. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree and the findings of the trial Court, as the first respondent had successfully established his entitlement for interest to a delayed payment, which was, accordingly, granted by the trial Court.

¶22

In the circumstances, the Appeal Suit, accordingly, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal suit, if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

__________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶24

18^th September, 2013

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶27

APPEAL SUIT No.265 of 2012

¶28

18^th September, 2013

¶29

A.P.Transco v. Pilaka Appalaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Transco v. Pilaka Appalaraju

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

Gundabala Kamaladevi Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer

Mohd.Iqbal Rahman Vs Smt.Alunedunnisa Begum

Peddireddi Koteswaramma Vs M. Padmavathi

M. Yellaiah, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan

Dereddy Nagi Reddy Vs Narla Swamy Reddy [Died]

Bovilineni Raj Kumar, Vs Dudala Veera Swamy