Managing Director Pradeshik ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 34802 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Managing Director Pradeshik ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy ... on 12 December, 2023

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:81442-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 934 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Managing Director Pradeshik Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shruti Sahu
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
 

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

C.M.A. No.1 of 2023 (Application for condonation of delay)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. There is reported delay of 44 days in filing the present intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules. The appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit.

3. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 does not have any objection if delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.

4. Cause shown being sufficient and in absence of any objection, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on Appeal

5. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has assailed the judgment/order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Writ Court in Writ-A No. 6810 of 2023.

6. The challenge to the impugned judgment/order dated 14.09.2023 is confined to the interest component on the amount due against leave encashment payment whereof was delayed by one year.

7. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 2 retired on 31.01.2018 and had earned leave encashment. The amount of leave encashment was released after a delay of one year on account of some audit objection and in this manner there was an inordinate delay in making the payment.

8. Once the principle amount has been paid to the respondent no. 2, there is no reason as to why delayed payment may not be compensated at the rate of 7% per annum as ordered by the Writ Court. Moreover, the delay is not attributable to anything done by the respondent no. 2 and was a procedural formality to be expedited by the employer alone.

9. We see no good reason to interfere in the present special appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.12.2023

kanhaiya