APPELLANTS : (RESPONDENTS) W4 %¢/ M%r WI” w w“? a”8 afw” RESPONDENTS (PETITIONER) No. 10, Opposite Geeta Temple, M.G. Road, Khankhal, Haridwar, Uttaranchal WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT {APPEAL TO THE DIVISION BENCH) ACT. 2006 2215/2004) Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. Through: Chairman Cum Managing Director H.S.C.L. Regd. Ofiice :75/1, Commissariat Road, Hastings Calcutta 22‘ General Manager, Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil 8r, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Union of India, Through: secretary, Department of Steel, Govt. of India, New -— Delhi. VERSUS \ L.N. Gupta, S/o Dr. B.S. Gupta, Aged about 6O years, Ex»SectionvOfficer Zone {Unit} 130 Hindustan Steel Workers Construction Limited, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsii 8r, Distt. Durg, R/o. Flat x 1, 9° EGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH : BILASPUR K W. A. No. 219 of 2008 Appellants ‘ Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. &_others Respondent L. N. Gupta Versus HIGH WRIT APPEAL COURT (APPEAL UNDER SECTON TO DIVISION 21 ll OF BENCH) THE CHHATTISGARH ACT 2006 DB Hon’ble Mr I M Quddu31 85 Hon’ble Mr Prashant Kumar Mlshra JJ Shr1 V1nod Deshmukh Advocate for the appellants None for the respondent desplte serv1ce of notlce ORDER(orall ( Passed on thls 22nd day of Apnl 2010 ) Per I M Quddusl, J Perused the P U D and the order dated 5 4 2010 passed by Hon’ble the Ch1ef Justlce on the P U D t Notlce was 1ssued to the respondent but nobody has put 1n appearance despite suffic1ent serv1ce Slnce no one 1s present for the other s1de desplte serv1ce of notlce, therefore, we dlspose of this appeal 1n the absence of the respondent. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.‘ 2215/2004 (L N Gupta Vs Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltc 85 others) The appellants have only challenged that part of the impugned order dated 8th July 2008 which imposes an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the respondents serv1ce dues, from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. , __\ // \ 6. It is set principls of law that an employee serving in an establishment; it is but natural that various amounts in various heads can become due during his service. Usually the due amount is paid even after retirement of the employee. Sometimes, Accountant General keeps some percentage of the G.P.F. with them for want of clearance from the office Where the government servant has worked. However, if the employee is not getting his dues or in case of denial of payment of arrears accrued to an employees, Court may issue directions for payment but it would not be proper to impose interest on such dues, unless there are strong cogent \c reasons to do so. 7. In the instant case, the writ petition was filed by the respondent with the fact that the writ appellant No.1 is a company incorporated and' registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its head office at 1, Shakespear. Sarani, 8&1 Floor Calcutta, of which 100% shares were transferred to the Central Government, consequent to which it became a government owned company. The respondent was working on the supervisory post of Section Officer. He sought conditional voluntary retirement on 7.12.1999 but his application for the same was returned back with the intimation that the conditional retirement cannot be accepted, against which he preferred a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was registered as W.P.No. 331/2000. That petition was disposed of vide order dated 27. 1.2000. Resultantly, the application of the respondent for voluntary retirement was accepted and an order was passed for releasing the payment. Further, the l respondent was also entitled for medical reimbursement but he was denied his legal dues to the tune of Rs. 5,59,849. We do not find any cogent reason for imposing interest. Therefore, We set‘ aside that part of the order dated 8th July; the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 2215/2004 an Single Judge. However, accordance with service Rules, 2008 passed by d dispose of this r if the interest is liable to be paid in then the same be paid in 1 accordance with the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/~ ’ w Sd/— Prashant Kumar MiShra -. - Judge I.M.Quddusi lg g I Judge 1 v-f Thakur