Allahabad High Court
Dr. M.B. Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Vikram D. Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16477 of 2016
Petitioner :- Dr. M.B. Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narayan Dutt Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Medical Officer under the respondents and was entitled to 3rd ACP in the year 2010. However, the benefit of 3rd ACP was granted in the year 2014. On the aforesaid basis, the petitioner claimed interest on the delayed payment of the financial benefit arising out of 3rd ACP. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest on delayed payment of financial benefit of 3rd ACP.
The primary ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner by impugned order is that the petitioner had cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 SC 3513 (2) decided on 31st January, 2000 claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum. By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on delayed payment of financial benefit has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not party to the judgment of the Apex Court and further, the aforesaid judgment was with regard to retiral dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the respondents have wrongly withheld the financial benefits then the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest.
It is to be noted that the financial benefit of 3rd ACP was granted to the petitioner in the year 2014 and it is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to the 3rd ACP in the year 2010.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that there was no delay in granting financial benefit to the petitioner. However, on a pointed query being made to the learned Standing Counsel whether the impugned order record such a finding, learned Standing Counsel fairly submits that such a finding is not being recorded in the impugned order.
It is further to be noted that where the financial benefit and other benefits are to be paid by the employer to an employee, the same are required to be paid forthwith and where there is a delay in payment of financial benefit and the delay is at the behest of the employer, then the employee is entitled to payment of interest on the aforesaid financial benefits. Such interest is compensatory in nature and as such it is to be linked with the rate of interest prevailing at the given point of time.
In the present case, the respondents have not recorded any finding with regard to delay and whether there was any delay in payment of the financial benefits and at whose behest the delay has occurred. Such a finding has to be recorded by the respondents while deciding the claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment.
Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19/29.1.2016 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded back to respondent no.1 for taking decision afresh in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by respondent no.1 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022
Bhaskar
