Sital Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1062689
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-17-2013
AppellantSital Singh
RespondentFood Corporation of India and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.16897 of 2010 date of decision:17. h january, 2013 sital singh petitioner versus food corporation of india and others respondents coram: hon’ble mr.justice rakesh kumar garg present: ms.deepa jain, advocate for mr.malkeet singh, advocate for the petitioner. mr.r.k.sharma, advocate for the respondents. rakesh kumar garg, j. (oral) the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.04.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to release all his terminal benefits along with interest @ 12 % per annum. it is not in dispute that during the pendency of this writ petition, all the retiral benefits of the petitioner stood paid. not the only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of his right to enjoy the pensionary benefits for a considerable period of about six years without any fault on his part and thus, he is entitled to interest on the amount paid to him for the said delay. however, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that due to the recovery proceedings on the basis of civil writ petition no.16897 o”2. disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, the file for release of retiral benefits of the petitioner remained under process and thus, the respondents have not caused any delay willfully, therefore, no interest should be levied upon them. however, it is not in dispute that after retirement the petitioner had represented to the respondent-authorities that the alleged recoveries due against him be adjusted from his retiral benefits. in view thereof, no plausible explanation has been put forward by the respondents for denying the payment of admissible balance amount to the petitioner. thus, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed period i.e.with effect from the date of his retirement till the actual payment of said amounts (actual payments).which were paid in the court. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met if the petitioner is granted interest @ 6% per annum for the aforesaid period. let the respondents calculate the interest on the aforesaid amounts and pay the same within three months from today. disposed of. (rakesh kumar garg) judge january 17, 2013 rps
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16897 of 2010 Date of decision:

17. h January, 2013 Sital Singh Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms.Deepa Jain, Advocate for Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner, who retired from service on 30.04.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to release all his terminal benefits along with interest @ 12 % per annum.

It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this writ petition, all the retiral benefits of the petitioner stood paid.

not the only argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of his right to enjoy the pensionary benefits for a considerable period of about six years without any fault on his part and thus, he is entitled to interest on the amount paid to him for the said delay.

However, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that due to the recovery proceedings on the basis of Civil Writ Petition No.16897 o”

2. disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, the file for release of retiral benefits of the petitioner remained under process and thus, the respondents have not caused any delay willfully, therefore, no interest should be levied upon them.

However, it is not in dispute that after retirement the petitioner had represented to the respondent-authorities that the alleged recoveries due against him be adjusted from his retiral benefits.

In view thereof, no plausible explanation has been put forward by the respondents for denying the payment of admissible balance amount to the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the delayed period i.e.with effect from the date of his retirement till the actual payment of said amounts (Actual Payments).which were paid in the Court.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met if the petitioner is granted interest @ 6% per annum for the aforesaid period.

Let the respondents calculate the interest on the aforesaid amounts and pay the same within three months from today.

Disposed of.

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE January 17, 2013 rps