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.

Union of India Represented by General and Others Vs. P. Aboobacker and Another

Union of India Represented by General and Others vs P. Aboobacker and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 29, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/947467

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
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C).No. 25883 of 2010 (S)
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

Union of India Represented by General and Others

Respondent

P. Aboobacker and Another

Legal References

Reported In
2011(4)KLT176; 2011(4)ILR(Ker)228; 2011(4)KLJ60

Excerpt

.....dispute that pension or gratuity is not a grace by the employer, but a right of the retiring employee. every person retiring from service has the right to get his pension and gratuity determined and must be payable by the retirement. delaying pension and gratuity is against the purview of the rules. it is the duty of the appointing and controlling authorities to see that the pension and gratuity of every retiring personnel is sanctioned and made payable by retirement. if not, the consequence would be disastrous. survival of the pensioner itself would become a challenge. not only he had to run from pillar to post but also to fight litigation. the delay in this case is more than seven years. now only the petitioners had to concede. the agony and hardship that the 1st respondent suffered is irreparable. in fact, the 1st respondent is entitled to get penal interest. but the tribunal had awarded only at very moderate rate. if at all the tribunal erred, it is only towards leniency in favour of the petitioners. we find no good reason for delaying the gratuity and pension to the first respondent. in the above circumstances, the tribunal below was justified in granting interest at a reasonable rate. there is no merit in the petition. accordingly it is dismissed. we further direct that the arrears shall be paid within six weeks. the interest paid shall be realized from the erring officials after fixing the liability.

Full Judgment

“C.R.”

GOPINATHAN, J.

1. By the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 in O.A. No.196/2008 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, directed the petitioners to pay gratuity and pension to the first respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.7.2004 till date of payment. The petitioners now did not dispute the liability to pay gratuity and pension. Only the liability to pay interest is disputed with a pleading that Pension Rules does not permit payment of interest on belated pension and gratuity. True, there is no Rule. Reason is obvious. Rule makers did'nt anticipate any such delay in payment of pension and gratuity. In other way no rule permit delayed payment of pension or gratuity. It is not in dispute that pension or gratuity is not a grace by the employer, but a right of the retiring employee. Every person retiring from service has the right to get his pension and gratuity determined and must be payable by the retirement. Delaying pension and gratuity is against the purview of the Rules. It is the duty of the appointing and controlling authorities to see that the pension and gratuity of every retiring personnel is sanctioned and made payable by retirement. If not, the consequence would be disastrous. Survival of the pensioner itself would become a challenge. Not only he had to run from pillar to post but also to fight litigation.

The delay in this case is more than seven years. Now only the petitioners had to concede. The agony and hardship that the 1st respondent suffered is irreparable. In fact, the 1st respondent is entitled to get penal interest. But the Tribunal had awarded only at very moderate rate. If at all the Tribunal erred, it is only towards leniency in favour of the petitioners. We find no good reason for delaying the gratuity and pension to the first respondent. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal below was justified in granting interest at a reasonable rate. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.

We further direct that the arrears shall be paid within six weeks. The interest paid shall be realized from the erring officials after fixing the liability.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial