Gokal Chand vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4714 Del

$~5
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 Date of decision : September 23, 2011

+      W.P.(C) 5726/1998

       GOKAL CHAND                                ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   None.

                        versus

       UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents

Through: Authorised representative of the respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J

1. The writ petition had reached for hearing on 9.8.2011 and noting that none appeared for the parties, we had directed court notice be issued to the parties by ordinary post intimating that the writ petition would be heard in the 'AFTER NOTICE MISCELLANEOUS MATTER' category for final hearing on 23.09.2011 i.e. today.

2. Multifarious reliefs have been claimed in the writ petition. The same is self evident from the prayer. We reproduce the same as under:

(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents in general and respondent No. 3 in particular, to forthwith release the following retiral

dues of the petitioner namely:

i) Difference of pay with increments during the suspension period from 27.12.1986 to 2.4.1992 with interest @ 18% per annum;

ii) Increased House Rent Allowance from 1.1.1986 onwards as per the IVth Pay Commission's recommendations; with interest @ 18% per annum;

iii) Amount of provident fund lying deposited in P.F.Account No.274216 of the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum.

iv) Commutation value of pension as per the Vth Pay commission's recommendations with interest @ 18% per annum;

v) Gratuity as per Vth Pay Commission's recommendations @ 18% interest per annum;

vi) Pay arrears for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1996 with interest @ 18% per annum;

vii) Bonus for the years 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1996;

viii) Pay for the month of November 1997 @ 1087/- during the period of suspension.

ix) Packing allowance with interest @ 18% per annum;

x) Difference of pay from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.1996 with interest @ 18% per annum as per the Vth Pay Commission's recommendations;

xi) Difference of pay on promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector and a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner to the rank of Sub-Inspector as has been done in the cases of the juniors of the petitioner;

3. Learned authorised representative of the respondent has handed over a note sheet to us with proof of payments made to the petitioner and in respect thereof we would

highlight that as per the prayers made in the writ petition filed in October 1998 claim is made as under:-

(a) Difference of pay with increments during period suspension from 27.12.1985 to 2.4.1992

(b) Increased House Rent Allowance w.e.f. 1.4.1986.

(c) Money lying in the credit of the provident fund account of the petitioner.

(d) Commutation value of the pension as per 5th Pay Commission recommendation.

(e) Gratuity as per 5th Pay Commission recommendations.

(f) Pay arrears for the years 1986-1991 and 1996.

(g) Bonus for the years 1986-1991 and 1996

(h) Pay for the month of November 1997.

(i) Packaging allowance upon superannuation.

(j) Difference of pay from 1.1.1996 to 30.11.1996.

(k) Difference of pay on promotion to the post of Sub Inspector and a direction that the petitioner be promoted to Sub Inspector at par with juniors.

4. Pertaining to the monetary claims, it would be apparent that those which precede 3 years preceding the date on which the writ petition was filed, would be barred by limitation and a civil suit if filed would be dismissed and the law being that period of limitation for a suit would be a good measure for determining delay and latches, said claims would require to be dismissed on account of delay and latches.

5. Thus, we hold that all claims prior to the year 1995 are hit by delay and latches.

6. As per the counter affidavit filed and the documents

shown to us today, it would be apparent that the petitioner was under suspension from 17.12.1985 to 1.4.1992. A penalty was levied upon him. Said period of suspension was held as not entitled to any allowance other than subsistence allowance and since an employee under suspension is exempt from contributing to the provident fund, no deductions being made for said period, we find that the petitioner has been paid provident fund and the claim for said sum cannot be allowed.

7. We note that arrears towards 5th Pay Commission in sum of `6,345/-, such suspension period which was regularised as on duty requiring `54,004/- to be paid has resulted in said payment being made. Transfer and packaging allowance in sum of `1,350/- and bonus for the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 in sum of `2,994/-, total sum being `64,693/- has been paid to the petitioner as per receipt dated 31.12.2000. We may highlight that the period 26.10.1989 to 1.4.1999 has been regularised as on duty.

8. No relief can be granted to the petitioner for the claim of salary to the post of Sub Inspector as he was never promoted inasmuch as eligible candidates had to clear an examination for which willingness was sought and the petitioner never gave the willingness to take any exam.

9. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J

SUNIL GAUR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 pkb