- (1.) The Petitioner, who was under the employment of Respondent No. 1, Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited got retired on 28.2.1989 on his superannuation from the post of Deputy Chief Chemist. On his retirement, when the retiral dues were not paid in spite of several request being made, the Petitioner continued to retain the quarter which had been allotted to him during his service period. However, quarter was vacated on 30.1.1999. Thereupon a sum of Rs. 25,975/- was paid after deducting a sum of Rs. 99,891/- from the retiral dues towards penal rent and other charges. The Petitioner challenged it in C.W.J.C. No. 3848 of 1999 (R). The said writ application was disposed of on 21.7.2000 directing the Respondent to pay retiral dues after deducting usual rent which was being paid by the Petitioner during his service period. That order was challenged by the Respondent in L.P.A No. 284 of 2000. However, during pendency of the said L.P.A, a sum of Rs. 88,754/- was paid towards retiral dues after adjusting usual rent, other charges and the amount paid earlier but the interest was not paid on the amount of Rs. 1,25,866/- which according to the Petitioner was payable to the Petitioner as retiral dues and that apart, other claims were also not paid and in that eventuality, the Petitioner has moved this application for following claims. (i) Travelling allowance bill of Rs. 10,000/- submitted by the Petitioner on 7.7.1999 for shifting his luggage and household articles to his native place from Sindri along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (ii) Arrear balance payment of 15 days salary for the month of April, 1987 due to implementation of pay revision along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. (iii) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum from March, 1989 to November, 2000, i.e. for 11 years 8 months on Rs. 1,25,866/- being the retirement benefits due to the Petitioner on 1.3.1989 but was actually paid in November,2000.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent wherein it has been stated that claim of the travelling allowance is never admissible to the Petitioner as he continued to stay in the quarter of the Company unauthorizedly even after his superannuation whereas, as per the rule, one is entitled to the said benefits of travelling to his home town or place of settlement on retirement within the permitted grace period of three months of the retirement but the Petitioner never put forth any claim nor he moved to his home town after retirement and that it is wrong on the part of the Petitioner to say that said claim had been made, vide application dated 7.7.1999.
(3.) With respect to other claims, it has been stated that the payment of arrears of 15 days towards leave salary on revised pay has already been paid to the Petitioner amounting to Rs. 20,112/- but at that time, the Petitioner did not put forth any claim of interest over it, rather after 12 years of accepting the money has come forward to put forth the claim of interest.;