Ram Asrey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Sri Ganesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant interest at 12 per cent per annum to the petitioner on the amount due towards retiral benefits 30 days after the date on which the petitioner retired from service i.e. 30.10.2014 till the date of actual payment i.e. 26.09.2016.

The petitioner had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 9 of 2016 seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him pension as well as all the retiral benefits like gratuity, group-insurance amount, provident fund, etc. with 18 per cent interest. The said writ petition was disposed of, by order dated 10.08.2016, directing the respondents to pay the amount due to the petitioner, by way of retiral benefits, after deducting Rs. 1,67,827/-within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent. The Division Bench further directed that, in case the amount was not paid as directed within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment, the amount due should be paid with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 30 days of which the petitioner had retired.

The petitioner, admittedly, retired on 30.10.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that he had sent a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench by registered post acknowledgement due on 19.08.2016; the said letter was received by the second respondent on 24.08.2016; the three week's period stipulated by this Court expired on 15.09.2016, whereas the retiral benefits of the petitioner were paid only eleven days thereafter on 26.09.2016; and the order of the Division Bench obligated the respondents to pay the retiral dues of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of the order.

If, as is now contended before us by Sri Ganesh Kandpal, a copy of the order was served on the second respondent on 24.08.2016, it was obligatory on the part of the second respondent to ensure payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner by 15.09.2016 (within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Division Bench).

The petitioner claims that the amount was, in fact, paid only on 24.09.2016, more than ten days after the three week period stipulated by the Division Bench expired; the entire amount has also not been paid; and some amount is still due. As all these aspects necessitate examination by the official respondents, suffice it to observe that the order of the Division Bench, referred to hereinabove, obligated the respondents to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum to the petitioner from 29.11.2014 till the date of actual payment (which the petitioner claims was partially made on 26.09.2016), provided, of course, that the petitioner's retiral benefits were not paid within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order passed by the Division Bench. Since the petitioner claims that the order of the Division Bench, in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 9 of 2016 dated 10.08.2016, was served on the second respondent on 24.08.2016, and the actual payment was made only on 26.09.2016, it does appear, from what the petitioner has stated, that his claim, to be paid interest at 12 per cent per annum, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 9 of 2016 dated 10.08.2016 which has attained finality, is not without merit.

It would be wholly inappropriate for us, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to undertake the exercise of determining whether or not the aforesaid facts stated by the petitioner are true, even before this matter is examined by the competent authority. Suffice it, therefore, to permit the petitioner to make a representation in this regard to the first respondent who shall, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, consider the petitioner's representation, ascertain whether the facts stated in the said representation, and as noted hereinabove, are true, and pass a reasoned order as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 9 of 2016 dated 10.08.2016. If the petitioner is held entitled for payment of interest, then the interest component at 12 per cent per annum shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. In either case, the first respondent shall communicate his decision to the petitioner herein within the period stipulated hereinabove.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.