Sant Prasad Mishra vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Claiming interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of salary and post-retiral benefits, petitioners have filed this writ petition and point out that in Writ Petition No. 5751/2010(S) [Girdhari Lal Gupta and others Vs. MPRTC and another], various benefits have been granted to similarly situated employees in the matter of payment of interest. It is stated that thousands of employees in the Corporation have been granted interest and petitioners also claim the same.

Petitioners were working in the Corporation and took VRS. They had retired in the year 2006 and 2005 and as their retiral claims and other benefits were not paid in time and there was delay, they claimed 6% interest on the delayed payment in the light of the law laid down in the case of Girdhari Lal Gupta (supra).

Respondents have filed reply and contend that the petitioners have filed this writ petition without submitting any representation and as the petition is filed belatedly i.e. after a period of more than 7-8 years of their retirement, they are not entitled for the benefit.

In the case of Girdhari Lal Gupta (supra), identical relief claimed for by employees of the respondent Corporation have been disposed of in the following manner:

The singular claim in the present writ petition, by the petitioners, retired employees of M.P. Road Transport Corporation, is for 6% interest per annum of the delayed payment of salary.

The petitioners availed the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which was accepted by the Corporation vide its order dated 27.02.2006 and the petitioners have been declared retired w.e.f. 28.02.2006 and all dues were settled along with arrears of wage, but the interest on delayed payment of salary was however not paid, which is being claimed in this petition.

When the matter was taken up, the respective counsels bring to the notice of this Court order dated 24/03/2009 passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1381/07, holding therein:

On the last date of hearing, we asked Mr. Chandak to enquire that in the matter of Badri Prasad Tiwari Vs. M.P. Road Transport Corporation (Writ Petition No. 695/2007(s) decided on 17/01/2007, any Appeal has been filed or not, we are informed that the said order had attained finality and the Respondent-Corporation has accepted the verdict of this Court and has paid 8% on E.D.F. And 6% on delayed payment of the salary. If such is the case then the respondents cannot be allowed to contest the litigation saying that they are not liable to pay to the present appellant, though they had paid the amount to the other claimant.

As the judgment in the matter of Badri Prasad (supra) has been accepted by the respondents, we don''t think that at this stage we can permit the Respondents to raise any objection against grant of interest.

The appeal is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of the salary at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of salary had fallen due, upto the date of the payment.

In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay interest on the delayed payment of salary @ 6% till realization within three months from the date of communication of this order.

It is a known fact and this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that thousands of employees have been granted benefit of interest and the order passed by this Court has also been upheld by the Supreme Court.

By placing reliance on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, ; and, another judgment in the case of Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury Vs. State of West Bengal and Others, , Shri Uttam Maheshwari raised two objections:

The first was that the petition without submitting a representation is not maintainable; and, the second was that after the delay of more than six years, relief cannot be granted.

On the contrary, Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent Corporation being a Public Sector Undertaking, should not take technical objections and being a benevolent litigant should not deny equitable relief to the present petitioners. In support of the aforesaid contention, Shri Dubey places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shantiranjan Sarkar, .

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records.

It is an admitted position that after retirement the retiral dues and other benefits were never paid to the employees by the Respondent/Corporation in time and in all cases interest as indicated in the judgment rendered in the case of Girdhari Lal Gupta (supra) have been granted.

Merely because the petitioners did not approach this Court in time to seek the benefit of interest, the same cannot be denied to them for the simple reason that when orders are passed by this Court and when interest is granted in other cases, respondents in all fairness should have come forward and granted interest.

The objections raised by the respondents are found to be technical in nature and I see no reason to uphold the same, when admittedly there was delay in settling the pensionary claims of the employees and when interest has been granted to all the employees, there is no reason for denying the same to the petitioners.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Respondent/Corporation is directed to pay to the petitioners'' interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of dues. The amount of interest shall be paid within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and shall be calculated from the date of retirement till settlement of the claim finally.

The petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Certified copy as per rules.