Satya Narain Agarwal vs State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 17675 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46225-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15737 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Satya Narain Agarwal
 
Respondent :- State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikas And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Anil Sharma,Pradeep Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

(1) Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dev Prakash Mishra, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents.

(2) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to be issued to the opposite parties to grant interest to the petitioner on a sum of Rs.3,16,663/- which is paid to him on 10.02.2010, from the date the said amount became due till it was actually paid. The petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31.07.1992 from the service of the State Government while working as Block Development Officer. It appears that certain deductions were made after the retirement from the amount payable to the petitioner, as a result of which he instituted Claim Petition No.1565 of 1999 which was finally allowed by the U.P. Public State Service Tribunal whereby the order of the deduction dated 25.04.1994 was quashed and a direction was issued to the respondent-State authorities to grant him consequential benefits and to refund the deducted amount of Rs.62,735/- and certain other directions were also issued.

(3) Thereafter, the petitioner instituted another Claim Petition namely Claim Petition No.1791 of 2011 before the U.P. Public State Services Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 whereby the State-respondents were directed to make payment of interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on the delayed payment made to the petitioner and also on the payment of post retirement dues.

(4) The said order of the Tribunal dated 01.07.2015 was challenged by the State by instituting Writ Petition No.21217 (S/B) of 2016, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by means of judgement and order dated 06.09.2016. The petitioner. in the meantime, appears to have instituted Contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 01.07.2015. The said Contempt Petition was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal by means of an order dated 09.03.2018.

(5) After dismissal of the aforesaid Contempt Petition by the Tribunal, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition with prayer to give direction to the respondents to pay him interest on certain amount. In our considered opinion, the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for the reason that whatever amount was due to the petitioner was directed to be paid by the Tribunal, including the interest, vide order dated 01.07.2015, and the Contempt Petition in respect of alleged non-compliance of the said order has also been dismissed by the Tribunal. It is not a case where the order dismissing the Contempt Petition by the Tribunal has been challenged rather, a direction has been sought for payment of interest.

(6) In our considered opinion, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is highly misconceived, which is hereby, dismissed.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (D.K. Upadhyaya, J.)

Order Date :- 17.7.2023

Arnima