Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Antu Ram Vs. V.

Antu Ram vs V.

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Oct 03, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1094132

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Antu Ram

Respondent

V.

Excerpt

.....released to the kumar kishan 2013.10.09 10:15 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p no.3468 of 2001 (o&m) ::2:: petitioner before the dates mentioned in the writ petition. she has also stated that in fact the assertion that the petitioner had applied in april 1997 is also incorrect. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a full bench decision of this court in a.j.randhawa vs state of punjab, 1998(1) sct343to contend that now it is beyond the pale of controvers.that for any unjustified delay in the payment of retiral dues, the employer is liable to pay interest. counsel for the respondents has not denied the position of law enunciated above. in the circumstances, it is directed that the question of delay in the release of retiral dues to the petitioner will be reconsidered by respondent no.2 with reference to the date of application by the petitioner and the date/s of the release of various amounts. in case the petitioner has applied in the month of april, 1997 the period upto 1.1.1998 will be taken as moratorium period for which no interest would be leviable. in case the petitioner has applied after his retirement, then the moratorium period would extend up to 1.4.1998. within these parameters.the case of the petitioner would be considered and a speaking passed on his entitlement of interest @ 8% pa from the date of expiry of moratorium to the payment of the amount/s (except in the case of gpf, for which prescribed interest would be payable).whatever interest is found due to the petitioner, the same would also be released to the petitioner within one month of the passing of the speaking order which is to be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. in case any due payment is not made to the petitioner within the stipulated period, he would kumar kishan 2013.10.09 10:15 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh c.w.p no.3468 of 2001.....

Full Judgment

C.W.P No.3468 of 2001 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.3468 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision : October 03, 2013 Antu Ram, .....Petitioner v.

The State of Haryana and otheRs......Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.C.M Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Shruti Goel, AAG Haryana for the respondents.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.

*** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The claim in this writ petition is for interest on delayed payment of retiral dues of the petitioner.

As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner retired on 31.8.1997 and his retiral dues were released from time to time between March 1998 and January 2001.

It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for releasing of his retiral benefits in the month of April 1997.

Counsel for the respondents states that the written statement leaves much to be desired and actually payments were released to the Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.3468 of 2001 (O&M) ::2:: petitioner before the dates mentioned in the writ petition.

She has also stated that in fact the assertion that the petitioner had applied in April 1997 is also incorrect.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in A.J.Randhawa vs State of Punjab, 1998(1) SCT343to contend that now it is beyond the pale of controveRs.that for any unjustified delay in the payment of retiral dues, the employer is liable to pay interest.

Counsel for the respondents has not denied the position of law enunciated above.

In the circumstances, it is directed that the question of delay in the release of retiral dues to the petitioner will be reconsidered by respondent No.2 with reference to the date of application by the petitioner and the date/s of the release of various amounts.

In case the petitioner has applied in the month of April, 1997 the period upto 1.1.1998 will be taken as moratorium period for which no interest would be leviable.

In case the petitioner has applied after his retirement, then the moratorium period would extend up to 1.4.1998.

Within these parameteRs.the case of the petitioner would be considered and a speaking passed on his entitlement of interest @ 8% pa from the date of expiry of moratorium to the payment of the amount/s (except in the case of GPF, for which prescribed interest would be payable).Whatever interest is found due to the petitioner, the same would also be released to the petitioner within one month of the passing of the speaking order which is to be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

In case any due payment is not made to the petitioner within the stipulated period, he would Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.W.P No.3468 of 2001 (O&M) ::3:: be entitled for further interest @ 2% p.a from the date/s the amount/s fell due till the date of payment of this interest amount.

This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

( AJAY TEWARI ) October 03, 2013.

JUDGE `kk' Kumar Kishan 2013.10.09 10:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial