D.D. TEWARI Vs. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
August 01,2014
D.D. Tewari
Appellant
VERSUS
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAJO VS. DELHI BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-91] [REFERRED TO]P MUTHUSAMY VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-424] [REFERRED TO]
B RAJENDRAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-363] [REFERRED TO]
TNGEN SINGH BASAIAWMOIT VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2023-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MEGHANAND NAYAK [LAWS(ORI)-2021-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
NOORUDDIIN VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-290] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-458] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA SINGH AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-631] [REFERRED TO]
JETHABHAI JIVABHAI SOLANKI VS. COMMISSIONER - TECHNICAL AND EDUCATION [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
A. V. V. B. EESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
DULAR SINGH SINHA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KESHAVLAL JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-7-1256] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAVI BABU VS. JAYASANKAR [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
T. SAMPATH VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-249] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA LAL RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR TRIPATHY, SON OF LATE RAM NARESH TRIPAT VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SO [LAWS(PAT)-2018-3-185] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
L RANGASWAMY VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [CBE] LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-422] [REFERRED TO]
V SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-457] [REFERRED TO]
V KALIAPERUMAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-303] [REFERRED TO]
AZRANATH M. MOMIN VS. G..H.A.D.C. [LAWS(MEGH)-2019-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-282] [REFERRED TO]
UMIYASHANKER BHULESHWAR JOSHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL [LAWS(GJH)-2019-3-231] [REFERRED TO]
SANYUKTABEN JAGDISH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-105] [REFERRED TO]
JAI BHAGWAN NANDAL VS. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-346] [REFERRED]
KIRANRANI BACHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2018-4-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP VS. SUPERINTENDENT, GANDHI MEMORIAL & ASSOCIATED [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-355] [REFERRED]
RAMA KANT SRIVASTAVA VS. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-240] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDAS MAROTRAO MORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-126] [REFERRED TO]
E. MANICKAM VS. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPPON BUILDING EVR SALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-356] [REFERRED TO]
P.PARIMALAM VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
A SAGADEVAN VS. TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-349] [REFERRED TO]
C MANICKAM VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-356] [REFERRED TO]
G CHANDRAN VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-372] [REFERRED TO]
RULDU SINGH VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(P&H)-2021-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-262] [REFERRED TO]
BIMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA (P&H) [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. VIJAY LAXMI VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPENDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-3-249] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIB RATAN SAHA VS. INSTITUTE OF COST ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWAROOP SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
THE SECTION OFFICER, O AND M DIVISION AND ORS. VS. RAVI [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-312] [REFERRED TO]
KHIMJIBHAI KANJIBHAI BALAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-283] [REFERRED TO]
NILAMANI MISHRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA PRASAD PANDA VS. DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
M AMUTHA VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-358] [REFERRED TO]
T MANIMUDI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-431] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-245] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR SINGH VS. D.H.B.V.N.L. AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-259] [REFERRED TO]
THE COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPPON BUILDING EVR SALAI, CHENNAI VS. E. MANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-152] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-8-214] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM & OTHERS VS. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NABHA ROAD, PATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI NATH SINGH VS. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-274] [REFERRED TO]
SARVAJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-241] [REFERRED TO]
J REGHU S/O N P JANARDANAN VS. DIRECTOR [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
H N SHARMA VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-111] [REFERRED TO]
DR. B.J. MAHENDRA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-152] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAGA MACHINDRA DUDHADE VS. MAHATMA PHULE KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH [LAWS(BOM)-2016-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT, SLM HSG 75, DHARAPURAM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY VS. P BALASUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-502] [REFERRED TO]
C LAWRENCE VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-368] [REFERRED TO]
S SELVARAJ VS. GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED (COIMBATORE) [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-512] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. SOJAN [LAWS(KER)-2024-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AQUIL HASAN AKBARI, SON OF LATE SYED HAIDER H VS. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-3-326] [REFERRED TO]
ACHYUTANANDA PARIDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM DEV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
NATHALAL MADHAVJI KODINARIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
RAM VEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U P AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-317] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-329] [REFERRED TO]
BIHARI LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-61] [REFERRED TO]
DINAVAHI LAKSHMI KAMESWARI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHAND VS. PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-10-176] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYAN THAKUR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-9-178] [REFERRED TO]
R RAJENDRAN VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (VILLUPURAM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-427] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR VIJAYVARGIYA VS. STATE OF M P THROUGH & OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-150] [REFERRED TO]
BISHESHWAR NAND GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
ANJANI KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-4-113] [REFERRED TO]
A. B VISWANATHAN VS. FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGABAN CHANDRA SARMAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-3-60] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAM LAL SAHA @ RAM LAL SHAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
M.SUCEELA BAI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
SUNARIKA DEVI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR CHHAJED VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-3-103] [REFERRED TO]
R. N. GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-151] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET SINGH KHURANA VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-363] [REFERRED TO]
LILABEN DINUBHAI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH G. GAGWANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1017] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL VS. INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-238] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BILASH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2020-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
NABAGHAN ROUT AND ORS. VS. ORISSA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
THE GENERAL MANAGER (P & EEL), MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. VS. ASIM KUMAR CHATTERJEE AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2016-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
N RAGAVENDRAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION(KOVAI) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-437] [REFERRED TO]
R PARIMALA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE EXPRESS TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-484] [REFERRED TO]
INDRA KUMAR SINHA, SON OF CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF KALISTHAN ROAD, P.O. GPO, RANCHI, P.S. LOWER BAZAAR, DISTRICT RANCHI VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
F.J.M. CRASTA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. N.SURESH CHANDRA [LAWS(TLNG)-2018-11-20] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS VS. K. STANAKA [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANAY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-97] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-44] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF LATE DINESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, EX VS. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOM, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI [LAWS(PAT)-2015-9-186] [REFERRED TO]
N RAMANATHAN VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (SALEM) LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-420] [REFERRED TO]
K N SUBRAMANYA S/O NAGESHAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MKTG BOARD VS. OM PARKASH NAIN & ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-427] [REFERRED]
MUKANDI LAL SINGLA VS. UCO BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-420] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-291] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE JACOB VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
ASHVINKUMAR RAMNIKLAL JANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL KRISHNA BHATTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-3-126] [REFERRED TO]
G. VENKATI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. The appellant (since deceased) is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1818 of 2010 in affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge passed in C.W.P. No. 1048 of 2010 wherein he was not awarded interest for the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount, for which he was legally entitled to. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court for grant of interest on the delayed payment on the retiral benefits of pension and gratuity payable to him by the respondents.
(3.)The appellant was appointed to the post of Line Superintendent on 30.08.1968 with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In the year 1990, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his service, the appellant remained in charge of number of transformers after getting issued them from the stores and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the stores. While depositing the damaged transformers in the stores, some shortage in transformers oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transformers were erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and later on it was held that for the shortages and breakages there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 1 SCC 429, wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.
(2.)Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. The appellant (since deceased) is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1818 of 2010 in affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge passed in C.W.P. No. 1048 of 2010 wherein he was not awarded interest for the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount, for which he was legally entitled to. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court for grant of interest on the delayed payment on the retiral benefits of pension and gratuity payable to him by the respondents.
(3.)The appellant was appointed to the post of Line Superintendent on 30.08.1968 with the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In the year 1990, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his service, the appellant remained in charge of number of transformers after getting issued them from the stores and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the stores. While depositing the damaged transformers in the stores, some shortage in transformers oil and breakages of the parts of damaged transformers were erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and later on it was held that for the shortages and breakages there is no negligence on the part of the appellant. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 1 SCC 429, wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.