Allahabad High Court
Raj Krishana vs Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 13 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36744
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3701 of 2024
Petitioner :- Raj Krishana
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Telecommunications Mini. Comm. New Delhi And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadava
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dwijendra Mishra
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, SriDwijendra Mishra, counsel for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and Sri Anand Dwivedi, counsel for Union Of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitoner has confined his argument to the extent that though, the privileged leave encashment is paid to the petitioner, but the interest on the delayed payment has not been paid yet. He added that the petitioner resigned in year 2017 and the privileged leave encashment is paid on 2024 i.e. after passing of about seven years.
3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment and order passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 7939 of 2024 dated 08.04.2024 and has referred the following paragraph:-
"The learned senior counsel relied upon a Memorandum of the year 1999 which makes it clear that no interest will be payable on the amount towards leave encashment. After the Writ Court found that there was no valid justification for not paying the leave encashment amount for a period of 4 years and 10 months, interest at the rate of 7% p.a. has been granted. We find that the Writ Court was well within its powers to do so."
4. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if writ court finds that there is valid justification for not paying the leave encasement amount for a period of four years and ten months, the interest at the rate of 7% would be granted, thus, submission is that the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of the interest on the delayed payment of privileged leave encashment amount for the period of seven years.
5. On the other hand, SriDwijendra Mishra, counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has controverted the contention of counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no provision and rules with respect to payment of interest on privilege leave encashment and further added that the delay is not on the account of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the said payment.
6. Considering upon submissions of counsels for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner is resigned in year 2017 and sough payment of leave encahement and that accrued on the date of his resignation.
7. In view of the above, the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner with respect to the payment of interest on the delayed payment of privileged leave encashment, within period of eight weeks from the date of certified copy of this order produced before them, while considering the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal No. 7939 of 2024.
8. The order passed by opposite parties no. 2 and 3 shall be communicated to the petitioner.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Mayank
