-^ '^ / / ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. IZ55'OF 200^ PETITIONER A.-/y,.-"^ ^L^' ../' .<V ^-'y / °5' y^€^(^ s^^" <:;^^ ^••y ^ '<?'^ ^' RESPONDENT ^.^ }Q^f^'c^ ^,<.^7\^\ * ? s'^ts^hik l ^ 1 ^\ ^^.-^'^ j ei^'7// ^, Dr. Purshottam Rao Choudhary, S/o. Late M.R. Choudhaiy, aged about 55 years, retired as Assistant Surgeon from Primary Health Centre, Masturi, and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) R/o. Saraswati Nagar, opposite Pratap Talkies Bilaspur (C.G.) YERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Distt. / Raipur (C.G.) .^ 2. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^Sr,.G WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION f{ OF INDIA . . ^ :^ 2>Z .HIGH;GOyRT©F:CHHATTISQARH-:8lS-ASPUR. -fr'i' -•:, ,' -WRrT.PETiTlQN.(S)-N'0.-1:255:OF':2009 : '•..•. - PETITIONER,^ ..:••.•. ,;'.' 'Qr.lPurshottam^Rao'Chcsudhary. RESPGNDENTS ¥ersys- ; ^..•.••::\:'' .^^ ,, Sf^ofCJihattlsgarh^& ^ (Wrlt.PetjtiGn unaer .Artlcle:^2 Singis Bench : Hon'bIeShri Satlsh K.' AgnJhotri.'J. Present:- •;Stiri P.S. Koshy.'counsel forthe petltloner. Stiri Paokaj Shrivastava, Panei-Lawyerforthe''^ • 1 ':. ,' -- ^ ' (Passsd: on this 10 h day of'December, .2009) 1. iWlth .the/conseiit-of learned coypsel^^^ :parties,-th:e: petition' Is heard finajiy.: . | 2,\ /|By^this^ •responde?it;-ayfhorit8es4o.9rant interest^onti as the retrlal dues .h'ave been: paid ;to the petitionsr - IfeeSatedly'after'IO years.'i .•• ^ r. :;. : ••• : . •• 3. The Indisputable facts. in brief, for adjydication of the case, ^ 'are : !lhat Injtlally .the ^' petitioner was appointed. . asAsslstant Syrgeon.by •orderciated 18^^^^ -; P/1).';After Goar.pietion ; of 20' years of service, the. petitioner appJied!for-¥olyntaryretlremeh he'was^retired from^service w.e.f. ,10-12^ : : • • 4. • As the':fy!l and final' retrial dves have n.ot'b^en paid- to 'lhe petitio.ner,,1 he^pre'ferredi ap:^origjii:al:^appiieatlon before.'the: State- Adminlstrative Trlbunal (for s'hort siths TribunaS"), ;belng 0.A.No.73/20Q1..A:fter aboSitlonGfthie Tribunal,:1;he ^^ orlginaiappllcation was transferred to this Court and the same wasrenumberedas W.P.'(S) No.3525 of2005. .5, During pendency of the Ipetition, , the' State Qovernmeot released an amount of Rs.7,01.70'2^- (Rs.1,44,080Mowards gratuity-i" Rs.5,57,622/-towards pension) in favour ofthe petitioner wjfhoyt any interest in spite of the fact that th.e said payment has been made to the jpetltioner after an jnordlnate deiay of about 10 years. S. By order dated 3-3-2008 '(Annexure - PJ3) the writ petltlon (S) No,3525 of 2005 was dlsposed of by this Court and the matter to the ' Pension Committee. lo corTipllance of the order passed- by this •Coyrt, the petltloner submltted repregentations before the Pension Committee, • whlch were disposed .of, by the Psnslon Cojnmittee by order 8-10<"2008^ (Annexure —'P^S) withoutariy interference, on the ground •that the Tetrial dues have already been pald to the petltioner. 7. The contention of the petitioner is :that ths Pension Comfnlttee has not consldered the prayer made by the petrtioner with regard to grant of interest.on the deiayed payment. Agaln the petitloner sybmltted a representatlon dated 8-12-2008 (Annexure - P^7) before the Department of General Administratl.on:for grant of Interest oti the delayed pavment of retrjal dues, but the same was not considered and decided^ Thus, this petltion. 8.. Learned counsel appearing for the •respondents^State submits that due to pendency of W.P.(S) No. of 2005 ^.— the retriai dues could not be paid. Thvs, the petitioner is not entitled for Interest onjthe grouncl of delayed'payrTient. S. 3 have heard Jearned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pjeadlngs and the docyments appended thereto, 11 is an admitted positlonithal, the petltioner retirecl from service voluntarily w.e.f. 10-12-1997, but 11112008 the retriai dues were not pald to himjWJthoyt a.ny on the part of the petltioner, 'it is not.a case of the respooderrts that there was any orderdurlng pendency ofthe petition either by the Tribunal or by the High Coort restralning the .respondents from paylng the legaiiy admissible retrial dues to the petltlorser. The petltioner was deprlved of his legal. retrial dues for a perlod of about •10 years and, as such, he Is entltied to on accoynt of deiayed payment, 11, In-a similar facts, ofcase, the Coyrf in S,K. y. S^te of Haryana & Anc-ther' very specJficaSly observed that If the retnal beniefits.are given with delay of yea.rs, then the empjoyeewouid be entitied 'to interest oo sych retrial beneflts. In accordance with the rulesarid even in absence of rutes; employee can clain'1 jnterest by relying on Articles 14, 19 & 21 ofthe Consfjtution of India. .12. The 'contention of iearned counsei appearing for the respondents/State Is riotlced ' 4o be. rejected^ as the 1AIR 2008 SC 1077 ^ •'^- pendency of petition does not debar the StateJrespondents to take a decisiors for payment of retrial dues. interest, etc, 13. Applying the weJI settled principies, of law and for the reasons mentioned hereirsabove, thls Court is of the consldered opinion that tlie petjtloner is entitled to Interest at the rate of S»S% per arinum from the date of his voiyntary retireinent ti!! the actuai payment of retriai dyes; made by the respondent authorlties to the petitioner. 14, In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above» No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge