Himachal Pradesh High Court
Asha Sisodia And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Mamidanna Satya Rao, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ex. Petition(T) No. 1 of 2018
Reserved on : 18.10.2023
.
Date of decision : 30.10.2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asha Sisodia and another Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram :-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
_________________________________________________________
For the Petitioners : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.
Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh,
Additional Advocates General, Mr. Sidharth Jalta,
Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General, for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
The original writ petitioner despite remaining successful in his
legal pursuit right till the Hon'ble Apex Court, could not reap the fruits
of the judgment passed in his favour on 19.03.2012. After his demise,
his torch of instant execution petition was carried forward by his legal
.
heirs (wife & son). Pursuant to innumerable orders passed in this
petition, the respondents have now released all benefits due and
admissible under the judgment. The surviving claim of the petitioners in
the instant Execution Petition is regarding the interest on account of
delayed compliance of the judgment and consequently delayed payment
of monetary benefits flowing under that judgment.
2. We may summarize the events leading to petitioners' claim of
interest :-
2(i) The original petitioner was appointed as Law Officer in the
office of Advocate General on 04.08.1992. He joined as such on
06.08.1992 and continued to discharge his duties till his superannuation
on 30.04.2008.
2(ii) CWP(T) No. 2 of 2011 instituted by the petitioner was allowed
on 19.03.2012 by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the
petitioner shall be deemed to have been appointed on regular basis from
date of his initial appointment i.e. 06.08.1992 with further directions
that all consequential benefits be paid to him within a period of 10
weeks.
2(iii) Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2012 preferred by the State
.
against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench on
13.03.2013. Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.3285 of 2014 filed by the
State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 19.01.2015
leaving questions of law open.
2(v)
In February 2015, petitioner represented to the respondents
seeking implementation of the judgment dated 19.03.2012. The
representation was followed by further reminders/representations
seeking compliance of the judgment. Hearing no response from the
respondents, petitioner was constrained to institute this Execution
Petition.
2(v) The order dated 26.03.2018 passed in this Execution Petition
inter-alia records the assurance given by the learned Additional
Advocate General for the respondents-State that the judgment in
question would be implemented by the next date of hearing. Judgment,
however, was not implemented. Umpteen number of orders were passed
in this Execution Petition from time to time for getting the
judgment implemented from the respondents. The respondents released
some monetary benefits due and admissible to the petitioner in terms of
the judgment in piece-meal on different dates, that too pursuant to
.
several orders passed by the Court in the instant execution petition.
2(vi) The original petitioner died during the pendency of the
Execution Petition without reaping the fruits flowing from the judgment
during his life-time. His legal representatives viz. his wife and son were
brought on record of the case on 04.11.2020.
2(vii) The orders passed in this execution petition and pleadings of the
parties are stark pointers to the fact that the judgment was not
implemented by the respondents in time and monetary benefits due &
admissible to the petitioners (legal heirs of original petitioner) under
various heads, be it arrears of pay, pension, revised pay arrears, revised
pension, gratuity, revised gratuity, leave encashment etc. all were
released in piece-meal manner. So much so, that even the pay of the
petitioner on account of his retrospective promotion to the post of
Deputy Advocate General in the given pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67300 +
8600 G.P. (minimum of initial start of pay Rs. 37400 + 8600 G.P. =
46,000/-) was incorrectly calculated by the respondents and fixed at
Rs. 41,710 instead of Rs. 46,000. The petitioners (legal heirs of original
petitioner) had to litigate for the monetary benefits due to them under
the judgment.
.
3. The petitioners on 19.08.2023 had furnished following statement
of payments made to them by the office of Advocate General/District
Treasury Officer alongwith the dates of such payments :-
"Payment made by the Office of Advocate General
Sr. No.
1.
2.
Date
Payment
29.10.2015
21.12.2015
of Nature of Payment
Salary arrears
DCRG
Amount Rs.
5,27,537-00
2,02,849-00
3. 01.03.2016 Leave Encashment 2,61,740-00
4. 24.07.2019 Gratuity 1,59,193-00
5. 08.07.2020 Difference of Leave 2,05,410-.00
Encashment
6. 19.06.2023 Salary Arrears 41,486-00
7. 19.06.2023 Difference Leave 48,050-00
Encashment
Payment made by the District Treasury Office, Shimla
Sr. No. Date of Nature of Payment Amount Rs.
Payment
1. 01.01.2015 Pension Arrears 15,12,310-00
2. 01.01.2015 Gratuity 2,37,556-00
3. 01.08.2019 Pension Arrears 22,02,699-00
4. 01.08.2019 Gratuity Arrears 1,86,422-00
5. - Arrears of Revised Yet to be paid by DTO Shimla
.
Pension as per order
dated 19.07.2023
6. - Arrears of Revised Yet to be paid by DTO Shimla
Gratuity as per order
dated 19.07.2023
"
On 16.10.2023, the respondents placed on record following
tabulation provided by the District Treasury Officer Shimla on account
of arrears paid to the petitioners :-
"
Sr.
Period of Arrear Paid
to Amount Date of Payment
No.
1. 01/05/2008 to 30/09/2009 Rs. 43,606/- 11/10/2023
2. 01/10/2009 to 31/12/2015 Rs. 3,53,114/- 29/09/2023
0101/2022 to 31/08/2023 (Income Tax
Rs. 35,200/-
was deducted
out of it)
3. 01/01/2016 to 31/01/2022 Rs. 50,000/- 01/10/2022
Total Arrear Paid Rs. 4,46,720/-
(Statement Enclosed)
"
4. From the case record, it is writ large that the judgment dated
19.03.2012, which was directed to be implemented within a period of
10 weeks, was not implemented in letter & spirit by the respondents for
over a period of 10 years. The petitioners have now claimed interest on
account of delayed payment of monetary benefits given to them flowing
from the judgment. We have heard both sides. Learned Advocate
.
General's only defence is that the respondents had assailed the aforesaid
judgment first before the Division Bench and thereafter before the Apex
Court and, therefore, the interest is not payable to the petitioners.
Even if the plea of learned Advocate General is to be accepted,
then also the SLP preferred by the State was dismissed by the Apex
Court on 19.01.2015. The judgment dated 19.03.2012 attained finality
on 19.01.2015. The respondents still did not implement the judgment.
Firstly the original writ petitioner and thereafter his legal heirs (present
petitioners) were denied their legitimate dues even after remaining
successful in the litigation. There has been culpable delay in
disbursement of financial benefits to the petitioners. There had been no
lapse either on part of the original writ petitioner or his legal heirs.
There was no reason with the respondents to withhold the payable
benefits. Even in this Execution Petition, it was only after passing of
one order after the other, one adjournment after the another sought by
the respondents in a period of about five years, that the respondents
have now paid all the monetary benefits due to the petitioners under the
judgment. The petitioners are certainly entitled to interest on the
monetary benefits flowing to them under the judgment dated
.
19.03.2012 which were admissible to them on that date at least from the
date the aforesaid judgment attained finality i.e. 19.01.2015. For the
other financial benefits which became admissible to the petitioners
subsequently i.e. pursuant to subsequent revision of pay scale etc., the
petitioners are entitled to interest from the date those benefits became
due to them in law till the date of release. We, therefore, dispose of this
Execution Petition by directing the respondents as under :-
(a) The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum to the
petitioners on the monetary benefits which were due and admissible
to them on the date of pronouncement of judgment dated 19.03.2012
w.e.f. 19.01.2015 till the date of payment.
(b) The respondents are further directed to pay interest @ 6% per
annum on the remaining monetary benefits released to the
petitioners in compliance to the judgment dated 19.03.2012 w.e.f.
the date they actually fell due till the date of payment.
The interest, as aforesaid under both the components be paid to
the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today, failing
which the rate of interest under both the above components (a) & (b)
.
shall become 7% per annum.
The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( M.S. Ramachandra Rao )
Chief Justice
30th October, 2023 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
r Judge
