AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 295 wordsVerma, J.
(1). The only question now left to be determined in the present writ petition is whether because of delayed payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to the interest on such delayed payment.
(2). The petitioner retired on 31.3.1999. Because of certain charge-sheet, the retiral benefits were not paid. The provisional pension was sanctioned on 24.5.1999 and payment was made to the petitioner in the month of March 2000. The petitioner stood totally exonerated on 25.3.2000 vide Annexure-6 from the charges. He made representation to the respondents for the payment of retiral benefits and even a legal notice was issued vide Annexure 7, 8 and 9, but still payment was not made.
(3). It is now stated at the bar that the payment has now been made on 31.12.2000 whereas he was entitled to from March 1999.
(4). Admittedly, the employee was exonerated from the charges in March 2000, but still the payment was not made upto 31.12.2000 and is said to have been made in January 2001.
(5). It was the duty of the respondents to have immediately pay the retiral benefits on the exoneration of the petitioner from the charges and giving two months margin time for preparation of payment of the retiral benefits, the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.6.2000 to 31.12.2000 on the arrears of the retiral benefits. I am supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. Ors. (1).
(6). The writ petition is partly allowed with a direction that on the arrears of retiral benefits, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.6.2000 to 31.12.2000.
(7). The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.