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 · 430 words1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.
2 It is the petitioner's case that he had discharged the duties of Accountant between 01.01.1996 to 17.01.1999. The petitioner, in the instant proceedings, has prayed for issuance of appropriate order to make payment of the dues on account of benefits under Assured Career Progression (for brevity, ACP) Scheme which have been granted to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 in view of order of the Agriculture Department dated 09.12.2009, for the period 01.01.1996 to 17.01.1999 during which he had served on the higher post of Accountant, his initial post being that of Clerk.
3 Certain dues have been found recoverable from the petitioner as during the said period, he had been paid the salary for the post of Accountant though there was no Notification promoting him as Accountant. Entitlement of the petitioner, thus, has to be worked out in terms of the order dated 09.12.2009, of the Agriculture Department which is being relied upon by the petitioner.
4 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner should also be paid interest on the amounts found admissible since for the last 10 years, the Authorities, in spite of the order of the Agriculture Department dated 09.12.2009, had not made the payment to the petitioner. The submission is that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay on the part of the Authorities in working out entitlement of the petitioner.
5 Such submission has also to be viewed from the fact that before filing the instant writ petition in the year, 2019 and after issuance of the order dated 09.12.2009, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner, in the meantime, has ever raised his claim before the Authorities in respect of the said order. The Court, therefore, is not inclined to grant interest to the petitioner for the period as he has also not brought on record any document to show that prior to filing of the instant writ petition, he had pursued the Authorities for grant of benefits under the said order.
6 Writ petition is disposed of.
7 The Authorities should dispose of the claim of the petitioner in light of the order dated 09.12.2009.
8 Respondent No 2 shall work out the entitlement in light of the order dated 09.12.2009 and dues, found admissible, be paid to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the dues at bank rates.
