Allahabad High Court
Dr. Harihar Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 July, 2012
Bench: Vineet Saran, Virendra Vikram Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59785 of 2010
Petitioner :- Dr. Harihar Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- S. P. Pandey,J.P. Pandey
Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C.
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Vikram Singh,J.
This is an unfortunate case where a retired employee has to run from pillar to post for payment of the amount for which he is entitled to be paid. After several round of litigation, the petitioner has been paid the amount but with much delay and, thus, this writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delayed payment.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a medical officer in the Ayurvedic Department of the State, was placed under suspension on 9.4.1996 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. The said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.16103 of 1996 in which interim order was passed on 6.5.1996, staying the suspension of the petitioner. Despite that the petitioner was neither reinstated in service nor paid his salary. It was only on 4.6.1998, the State Government took a decision to reinstate the petitioner in service but a censure entry was given to the petitioner. It was further stipulated in the order of reinstatement that the decision with regard to payment of difference of salary and the suspension allowance would be taken separately. When no decision was taken by the respondents for payment of difference of salary for the period of suspension, the petitioner was compelled to file another Writ Petition No.31404 of 1998 and it was only after directions were passed in the aforesaid writ petition that the State Government took a decision on 29.6.2002 directing forfeiting the remaining salary for the period of his suspension. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.579 of 2003, which was allowed and the orders dated 4.6.1998 and 29.6.2002 were quashed and a specific direction was given to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner for the period of his suspension. In the meantime, the petitioner had retired on 31.1.2005.
Despite the order of this Court passed in the writ petitions as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, when payments were not made to the petitioner, he was compelled to initiate contempt proceeding. Not only this, the petitioner was also not given the benefit of merger of 50% Dearness Allowance in the basic pay and even though the basic pay of other government servants was re-fixed on such basis but such benefit was denied to the petitioner.
Petitioner was then compelled to file another Writ Petition No.25167 of 2008, which was disposed of on 21.5.2008 with a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner in respect of his claim. When no decision was taken, the petitioner had to file another Contempt Petition No.3723 of 2008 in which on 24.10.2008, the respondents were granted two months further time to comply with the direction of this Court. When no orders were passed, the petitioner was compelled to file another Contempt Petition No.1576 of 2009 in which notices were issued by this Court on 5.5.2009. It was only after the aforesaid rigorous exercise has been made by the petitioner and repeated directions have been issued to the respondents by this Court as well as the Tribunal in writ jurisdiction as well as contempt jurisdiction, the petitioner was ultimately paid the difference of Dearness Allowance amounting to Rs.8,34,000/- in December, 2009 which was due to be paid to him in the year 2005. The amount of difference i.e. Rs.1, 55,000/- of suspension allowance and the salary which was due to be paid in the year 1998, was paid to him in the year 2008. Such position is not denied in the counter affidavit in as much as, in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted that "the major part of the amount has been released in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009."
In the counter affidavit, the main thrust of the respondents is that payment has already been made to the petitioner. The question in this petition is not with regard to payment, which the petitioner has himself accepted in the writ petition itself but it is with regard to delay in payment to the petitioner. No explanation whatsoever has been given by the respondents in the counter affidavit as for what reason such delay was caused.
In the absence of there being adequate explanation for the delay in payment of amount due to the petitioner, we are of the view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner would be entitled to payment of interest for the delayed period in view of the fact that the petitioner has been un-necessarily dragged into litigation and he was compelled to file several petitions also before this Court as well as before the Tribunal and it was only then that payments were made and that too without interest and without there being any reason for delay in payment.
In view of aforesaid fact, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- for a period of 10 years (delay being from 1998 to 2008) and the same interest at the rate of 10% on the amount of Rs.8,34,000/- for a period of four years (delay being from 2005 to 2009). Such payment shall be made to the petitioner within a period of four months from today, failing which respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum instead of 15% per annum.
Order Date :- 6.7.2012
SKD
