Bombay High Court
Suhas S/O Vinayak Sohoni vs Ms. Tajinder Mukherjee, The ... on 8 March, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
7-CP-122-19 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.122 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2479 OF 2005
Suhas s/o Vinayak Sohoni, R/o Anant Mandir, Vivekanand Colony, Amravati
-vs-
Ms Tajinder Mukherjee, The Chairman-cum-MD National Insurance Co. Ltd. Middleton Street,
Kolkata and ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri V. S. Bapat, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri C. A. Anthoney, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE : March 08, 2021
The grievance of the petitioner is non-compliance of the
directions issued in the judgment dated 5th/6th June, 2018 in
Writ Petition No.2479/2005. Vide paragraph 9 the following
directions were issued :
" 9. The respondents are accordingly directed to release
regular monthly pension of the petitioner from the date of
his acceptance of voluntary retirement. The respondents are
directed to pay arrears of monthly pension to the petitioner
within a period of three months from today, failing which the
arrears shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of the acceptance of voluntary retirement of the
petitioner. "
2. In so far as the release of monthly pension of the
petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is
receiving regular monthly pension. The non-compliance alleged
7-CP-122-19 2/4
is with regard to payment of arrears of monthly pension within
a period of three months from the date of aforesaid judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
period of three months from the date of judgment expired on
05/09/2018. The respondents were liable to pay the arrears of
monthly pension within that period. The same was however not
done. The judgment in the aforesaid writ petition was
challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court and on
08/03/2019 the same came to be dismissed. It is only in May
2019 that the petitioner was paid the arrears of monthly
pension. It is thus submitted that for the period of delay
beyond three months the employer is bound to pay interest at
the rate of 12% per annum. In that regard the learned counsel
has placed reliance on the decision of Honourable Supreme
Court in IA No.10 of 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.510 of
2005 dated 13/10/2011 (Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union of
India and ors.)
4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other
hand submitted that the judgment of this Court was sought to
be challenged in the Honourable Supreme Court. Though the
challenge was not successful, steps were taken immediately
after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and on 20/06/2019
the arrears of monthly pension were paid to the petitioner.
There was no deliberate delay or wilful disobedience in
complying with the directions. Certain paper work was
required to be completed by the petitioner and on the same
being done the arrears of monthly pension were released.
7-CP-122-19 3/4
5. It is undisputed that the order passed in Writ Petition
No.2479/2005 stands confirmed after dismissal of the Special
Leave Petition on 08/03/2019. Admittedly operation of the
aforesaid judgment had not been stayed by the Honourable
Supreme Court till the Special Leave Petition came to be
dismissed. Consequently the arrears of monthly pension were
liable to be paid by 05/09/2018 and any delay thereof was to be
compensated with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Hence as the arrears of monthly pension had been paid on
20/06/2019 the petitioner naturally is entitled to receive
interest for the delay in making the payment. According to the
learned counsel for the respondents since some compliance was
required to be done by the petitioner, time was spent therein.
However alongwith the affidavit filed by the respondents there
are no documents to indicate that such communications were
made to the petitioner to comply with any deficiencies as urged.
6. In the light of aforesaid it is clear that the respondents
are liable to pay interest in terms of the judgment in Writ
Petition No.2479/2005. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for benefit
under recommendations of the 7 th Pay Commission, this fact is
disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents by relying
upon Office Memo dated 13/01/2017. In that view of the
matter it would be for the petitioner to seek determination of
his entitlement to the aforesaid benefit in appropriate
proceedings.
7. Since the amount of interest on the delayed period has
not been paid to the petitioner we are inclined to grant one
7-CP-122-19 4/4
opportunity to the respondents to make the necessary payment.
Accordingly time of four weeks is granted to the respondents to
make payment of interest for the delayed period in terms of
paragraph 9 of the judgment in Writ Petition No.2479/2005. If
the payment is not paid within the said period, the Court would
proceed to take cognizance of disobedience of the directions as
issued.
Stand over four weeks.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed
by Asmita
Asmita Bhandakkar
Bhandakkar Date: 2021.03.09
13:14:54 +0530
Asmita
