The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs J K Patel
2022 Latest Caselaw 14190 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                             WA No. 1337 of 2022
                (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs J K PATEL)

Dated : 02-11-2022
       Smt. J. Pandit - Government Advocate for appellant/State.

       Shri Dharmesh Chaturvedi - Advocate for respondent.

For the reasons assigned, I.A. No. 13510 of 2022 an application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10296 of 2019 to the extent of directing the interest to be recovered from the concerned Executive Engineer, the State is in appeal.

The learned Single Judge came to the view that the respondents/appellants had no authority to retain the gratuity amount in contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1993) 3 SCC 438 in the case of Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another. Furthermore, what was disputed was only an amount of Rs.1,85,284/-. However, what was withheld is Rs.12,56,156. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the

learned Single Judge was justified in directing the release of the entire amount except to the extent of Rs.1,85,285. The interest awarded is also justified. However, we find that the Executive Engineer did not commit any delay in processing the file of the writ petitioner. However, he has been saddled with the interest.

Prima facie, we are of the view that it is not the Executive Engineer but the Joint Director, Directorate of Treasury and Accounts who is responsible for the same. He has not followed the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has

deliberately withheld the amount. Therefore, he is prima facie liable to pay the interest on the said amount. We are of the view that he is also liable for payment of costs for what is incurred by the writ petitioner in approaching this Court.

Hence, the Deputy Advocate General to submit as to why in addition to the interest being levied on the respondent No.4, appropriate costs should not be imposed on him.

Call next week to hear the Deputy Advocate General.

          (RAVI MALIMATH)                                     (VISHAL MISHRA)
            CHIEF JUSTICE                                          JUDGE

 MSP


MANVENDRA SINGH
PARIHAR
2022.11.03 17:37:37 +05'30'