Roop Chand vs J&K State Agro Industrial ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1380 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            WP(C) No.104/2010

%                                                              March 20, 2013

      ROOP CHAND                                    ..... Petitioner
                             Through:    Mr. H.C.R.Khattar, Adv.

                    versus

      J&K STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND ANR
                                      ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. There are two reliefs which are claimed in this writ petition. One is

for the release of gratuity with interest. Second is the claim for benefits in terms

of the Sixth Pay Commission Report.

2. So far as the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission Report

is concerned, implementation of the same is not automatic and every

organization has to see as per its financial conditions and other service

conditions of the employees as to whether the organization can adopt the Sixth

Pay Commission Report or not. Counsel for the respondents states that the

respondent No.1/Corporation has not adopted Sixth Pay Commission Report and

has not paid emoluments in terms of the Sixth Pay Commission to any of its

employees. That being so, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of payment in

terms of the Sixth Pay Commission Report.

3. So far as the payment of gratuity is concerned, it is not disputed

that the petitioner has already received gratuity. The only issue remaining is the

issue for payment of interest for the delay from 30.9.2006 till payment during

the pendency of this writ petition. With respect to issue of payment of interest,

the respondent No.1/Corporation in Para 5 of its counter affidavit has stated as

under:-

5. That the contents of para No.3 of the writ petition are incorrect. It is incorrect that the respondents had illegally and illogically withheld the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.2006 i.e. the date of retirement of the petitioner. That late disbursal of the gratuity amount was due to the poor financial condition of the respondent corporation. That about 130 employees of the corporation who are similarly placed as the petitioner were not paid the gratuity due on their retirement due to poor financial condition of the corporation. There are about an approximate statutory liability of `254.00 lacs towards unpaid retirement benefits like gratuity of the retired employees as on 27.04.2010. The corporation approached the State government for extending financial assistance in terms of budgetary support for clearance of statutory liabilities including gratuity. The state Government vide their letter reference no.Agri/37/2008 dated 18.01.2010 conveyed that "Corporation should meet all their statutory liabilities out of their own resources with reference to Finance Departments circular instructions under No.FD-VII-11(101) BS/200-10 dated

11.04.2009."

4. In view of the aforesaid facts stated in the counter affidavit, the

present is not a fit case for grant of interest inasmuch as if I grant interest in this

petition, interest will have to be granted to other similarly situated persons and

the respondent No.1/Corporation already is in financial difficulties even with

respect to payment of the main amount towards the provident fund.

5. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J MARCH 20, 2013 ak