- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 235 of 2003, by which the writ petition had been dismissed observing therein that the dispute raised by the petitioner -appellant herein is crystallized only for a period of three months penal rent which has been said to be assessed on the basis of the market value as per the policy. It has been further observed that the other dues have been admitted and have been approved even by the audit report and the same is not being pressed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that although the respondents have realized penal rent on account of overstay of the appellant in the premise which the appellant was occupying in his official capacity, they have not paid 5% interest on the, amount of retiral benefits which was payable to the appellant. In the first place, we have noticed that the petitioner -appellant does not appear to have raised the question of payment of interest before the learned Single Judge as there is not even a whisper of this contention in the impugned order. Hence, it is not open for this appellate forum to adjudicate the question as to whether the amount of interest is fit to be paid to the petitioner -appellant on retiral benefits or not.
(3.) IN so far as the realization of penal rent is concerned, the appellant's own version is that he had been allowed to remain in the premises for a period of three months more, than he was entitled to and, therefore, the penal rent which has been realized for this period of overstay, cannot be held to be unjust, illegal or unreasonable.;