Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Geeta Shriwastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21398
1 WP-12022-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 11 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 12022 of 2024
DR. GEETA SHRIWASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Siddharth Sharma & Upendra Yadav - Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 06.03.2024, (Annexure P/1)
whereby her claim for grant of interest delay in making payment of leave
encashment has been rejected by the respondents.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was
working as Professor (Sociology) in Maharani Laxmibai Govt. College of Arts
and Commerce. He retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.2020.
3 . Upon her retirement, the petitioner was entitled to get the amount
towards leave encashment. However, the said amount was not paid to her
resultantly she approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 16885 of 2021. During
the pendency of petition, an amount of Rs.11,19,888/- was paid to the petitioner
on 07.03.2023. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for disposal of the petition with
liberty to file a representation claiming interest on the delay in making payment of
aforesaid amount. The petition was accordingly disposed of vide order, dated
02.01.2024.
4. Pursuant to liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner approached the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21398
2 WP-12022-2024
respondent-authority claiming interest on the delayed payment. Aforesaid claim of
the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent-authority vide impugned order,
dated 06.03.2024, stating that there was no intentional delay on the part of
respondents and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get interest on the
delayed payment.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was
entitled to receive the amount on the date of her retirement. There was no fault on
her part and, therefore, since the respondents have retained her amount about two
years and eight months, the petitioner is entitled to get interest.
6 . On the other hand, counsel for the respondents referring to averments
made in the return submitted that immediately after the retirement of the
petitioner, the sanction was sought for payment of amount toward leave
encashment. However, initially there was some objection regarding petitioner's
claim for leave encashment, however, after rectification of the said objection, the
amount was paid to her on 07.03.2023. Learned counsel submits that since the
delay occurred in making payment was not intentional and was only procedural,
the claim of grant of interest is not made out.
7. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
8. The claim of the petitioner towards leave encashment is not in dispute.
She was entitled to get this amount on the date of her retirement. However, this
amount admittedly paid on 07.03.2023 i.e. after delay of about two years and eight
months. The respondents retained the amount of leave encashment to the tune of
Rs.11,19,888/-. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to get interest on the
aforesaid amount cannot be said to be unjustified. The explanation given by the
respondents that the delay in making payment is unintentional and procedural is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21398
3 WP-12022-2024
not acceptable inasmuch as since the amount was payable to the petitioner on the
date of her retirement, the delay occurred intentionally or unintentionally is not
relevant. The Apex Court has considered the issue regarding payment of interest
on the delayed payment of amount in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State Of
U.P. & Another reported (1999) 3 SCC 438 wherein, the Court has held as under;
"6. The case before us is a clear example of departmental delay
which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30-4-1993 and it
was only after 12-2-1996 when an interim order was passed in
this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work
by sending a special messenger to various places where the
petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at
least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the
petitioner were computed and the payments were made only
during 1997-98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was
indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters
were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30-3-1993
seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by
the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the
Department inasmuch as the Rules and instructions require these
actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise which
was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started
long after the petitioner's retirement.
7. Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the
petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the
computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on
the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs 1 lakh
and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two
months from today."
9. Again, the Apex Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) Through Legal
Representative Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 894 has held as under.
"4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide
order dated 25-8-2010 [ CWP No. 1048 of 2010, decided on 25-8-
2010 (P&H)] , after setting aside the action of the respondents in
withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:21398
4 WP-12022-2024
to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months
without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High
Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in
State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429 :
1985 SCC (L&S) 278], wherein this Court reiterated its earlier
view holding that: (SCC pp. 429-30, para 1)
"1. [the] pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be
distributed by the Government to its employees on their
retirement but have become, under the decisions of this
Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any
culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must
be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the
current market rate till actual payment [to the employees]."
1 0 . Considering the aforesaid, impugned order, dated 06.03.2024,
(Annexure P/1) is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set-aside.
11. The respondents are directed to pay interest on Rs.11,19,888/- for the
period from 1.7.2020 to 7.3.2023 @ 6% per annum, within a period of 90 days
from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
12. The petition is accordingly, disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
