J.D. Suryavanshi Vs. State of M.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyaypeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam (14 of 2006)section 2 & m.p. general clauses act, 1957, section 12: [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] appeal to division bench against judgment of single judge - application for restoration/revival of letters patent appeal under clause 10 - held, the legal effect of the 1981 adhiniyam was that with effect from 1st july 1981, all appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished except appeals which were pending before high court on date immediately preceding date of commencement of 1981 adhiniyam on 1st july 1981. it will be clear from sub-section 92) of section 1 of the 2005 adhiniyam that the 2005 adhiniyam was to come into force with retrospective effect from first day of july, 1981 i.e., with effect from the date from which the appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished by the 1981 adhiniyam. it will be further clear from section 2 of the 2005 adhiniyam that under the 2005 adhiniyam, appeal was provided for only from a judgment and order passed by a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india to a division bench..........which has been paid to him through the cheques dated 14-7-2000 and 4-8-2000.9. the petitioner who is present in the court does not dispute the fact that the entire amount due has been paid to him.10. in the aforesaid view of the matter, the controversy which now survives is only in regard to the payment of interest over the amount which had been found due and actually paid to him.11. the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of nemichand jain v. state of madhya pradesh and anr., w.p. no. 1811 of 1997, decided on 19-11-1997, wherein drawing support from the earlier decision of this court in the case of d.p. shrivastava, advocate v. state of m.p., reported in 1996 (ii) mpwn sn 202, this court had found it appropriate to award the interest on the amount found due to be paid to a government pleader or public prosecutor at the rate of 12% per annum.12. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondents have not disputed the correctness of the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount of rs. 1,32,780/- and have actually paid the said amount to the petitioner, now, there could be no.....

Judgment:

ORDER

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Shri A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Shri S.G. Chitnis, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State-respondents,

2. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner had been appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor for the District Gwalior, in the year 1987. He worked as such during the period elapsing between June, 1986 to the month of December, 1991. He had been submitting the bills for payment due to him to the respondents and by 14-10-1992, the total amount of Rs. 1,34,894/-had become due towards his fee, etc., which amount had not been paid to him.

4. The petitioner has prayed for a direction requiring the respondents to settle his claim and release the payment of the ascertained amount to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to be calculated from the date the said amount had fallen due to the petitioner.

5. On 24-6-1998, the learned Addl. Advocate General representing the respondents had prayed for three weeks time for filing the counter-affidavit/return in opposition to the writ petition. Again, on 12-5-1999, on the request of the learned counsel for the respondents further time was granted to file the counter-affidavit/return. On the third occasion when the case was listed, the learned Addl. Advocate General prayed for two weeks further time. Time sought for was granted to file the counter-affidavit/return in opposition to the writ petition making it clear that no more time will be granted.

6. It may be noticed that in spite of the repeated opportunities having been provided to the respondents, no counter-affidavit/return has been filed so far in opposition to the writ petition.

7. The learned Govt. Advocate representing the State-respondents has stated that the amount which had been found due to the petitioner had been paid to him.

8. The learned counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 1,32,780/- which has been paid to him through the cheques dated 14-7-2000 and 4-8-2000.

9. The petitioner who is present in the Court does not dispute the fact that the entire amount due has been paid to him.

10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the controversy which now survives is only in regard to the payment of interest over the amount which had been found due and actually paid to him.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Nemichand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., W.P. No. 1811 of 1997, decided on 19-11-1997, wherein drawing support from the earlier decision of this Court in the case of D.P. Shrivastava, Advocate v. State of M.P., reported in 1996 (II) MPWN SN 202, this Court had found it appropriate to award the interest on the amount found due to be paid to a Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor at the rate of 12% per annum.

12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the respondents have not disputed the correctness of the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount of Rs. 1,32,780/- and have actually paid the said amount to the petitioner, now, there could be no justification for withholding the payment thereof for a period of over 8 years.

13. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fit case in which the petitioner should be paid additional amount to compensate the loss which he had suffered on account of non-payment of the amount due to him at the earliest. It has further been urged that by withholding the payment of the huge amount, the State itself has benefited at the expense of the petitioner by utilising the usufruct which otherwise the petitioner would have received.

14. What is just and fair in the circumstances of each cannot be laid down with any precision but one thing is clear that in the absence of any explanation of the inordinate delay in making the payment in question, the State-respondent is bound to indemnify the person and in the circumstances as brought on record, non-payment of interest will be wholly unjust and unfair.

15. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record and the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Nemichand Jain (supra), this writ petition is disposed of finally directing the respondents to pay an additional amount towards simple interest on the amount found due to the petitioner which has been ascertained to a figure of Rs. 1,32,780/- with effect from 1-1-1993, till its payment calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. The amount so calculated shall be paid within a period not later than 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority.

Ordered accordingly.