'fi'?l.,!c(> s.''1/?^ 1QH GOUKT OF CHHATTiSSARH: BtLASPUR Wi-K.Petltson No. Qf20SS PetKionsr RssEpndents usnssn i\sm Koinors. s?/o. •ynn u.i^. hisinors. grigQ gt^out 49 VQsrs, Dr°ssn!tiv worklnQ ss ,;^—-^,a?—C^^^c:ft.- r^^:-^r ^A- i'^hi^ /fr;VKiL?U^ ; ^i ;L d^i.SI i.teiUl ; cxecutive Officer, Janoad Fanchavat, Shankamsrh, Distrlct Surc'uls fCQ). Vsrsus i) i5T8^3 OF UHHatl'SQSfu, THPOUgH iTS ^SGfStSry^ pgpohgvgiT ^ Rursl D&vslQonisnt DsiDsrbT,spt. *^ ?/*0' f~f\^ .—•. ^ :—-si^ '.•''.-=-4.-n'^.-.-t •^..-,:,n,.^ .//^/^\ u.?\'.o. Qnswsn; ivisnirsisys; "isipu^ ^L^}. ^ 2) Coilectar, Korba (CG). ^\ Chief Executive Ofricer, Zisa Panchavat, Bslaspui (CG). V) Chief Executivs Officer. Janpad Panohayat. Ksthoors, Dlstrct Korbs ?CQ), iA/rit Pstition under ArSicie 225/227 of th6 Constitution of india^ >: Hon'bte Mr. Satls'n K. Aanihotri. J. Shri Sumit Verma, counsel for the petitloner. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri R. Verma, counsei for the respondent No.4. ORAL ORGER (Passad on 18^-2008) 'vVith consent of ieamed counsei appearing for the parties, the matter is nearo TinaiiV. 2) The petitioner has fiied this pet,tion claiming intereiit o" the aeisyea payment of consequentiai iaenents flowing from the order dated 18-9-1 S98 passed by the iyiadhya Pradesh Administi'atlvs TribLinai, JabalpLir, in T.A.NO.S332/1S88 (Ganeshram Rathore vs. State of M.P. and ancthert. (lilt, iii! 3} Learnsd counsei apDearina ror the oetitioner submits that the Davment or oonseqLientia! benents beoame due immediateiy on pronouncsment of the oroer dated 18-9-1998. Learned counsei further su&mits that reasonably 2-3 months time is normaiiy taken fcr caicuiation and necessary payms;Tt. !n the present case, % !TB /t-^^ ' 'StF^C-^ '§ I -2.- tie resDondenSs-auinorities have made the pavment on 23-3-2007 a'rter a cerioc of about eight years and six months. Thus, the petitioner ciaims interest fcr a Deriod cif eiCiht years. 4) The resDonaent No.4 - Chief Executive Officer. JanDSd Panchavat. Katghora, has fiieei an affidavit on 25-2-2008 stating that the petitioner has been paid a totai sum of Rs. 4,15.633/- as fuli and finsl payment incompiiance of the order dated 18-9-1998. Learned counssi appearina for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has acoepted the amount as fuli and finai payment on 23-3-2007. Thus, the pstitiOnsr is astopped from ralsins the issus of pa'.msriE OT intererest on Shs amount. 5) Bethatas itmay, thispetEtion'.yasfiled on 11-5-2005. The responcient No.4 had not taken any steps before flling of this petition, even thereafter,he has taken about two years to settie tne dues and to complv with the order ciated 18-9-1998 passed bv the Tribunai. Tne conduct cf ths rsspondent No.4 cleariv indisates the intention of ths respondent No.4 towards compiiance o'r the orders passed bv the CoLirtsfTribunals. in the interest of iusttee. It s necessar/ to arsnt some Interesi to the petitioner, who has waiied ror more tnan elght years to geE the fruits of the order passed on 18-9-1898. S) ii is wel! settted principie cr restitution that ti-ie peEitioner be placsd where in normal course he wouiafiave been. in the present cas8, nad he been granted ful! and rina'i payment in the year 1998, the sitLiation wouici have been dlfferent. VVith ^-/" . . .^ -,. -_ the passage of time, there have been manifoid increase the price 'index. This fact 4 ouaht to nave been taksn into consideration. Thus, She petitioner is sntitlsd te interest at the rate of 6% TTOFTS 1-1-1 SS9. tiil the Davmem is made to the pstitioner. The inSerest be paid to the petitioner within a penod offour weeRs from today. 7) Accorciingly, tne petiiion is ailowed. No orosr asto OOSES. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihptri Judge r-;aiu