Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/140/2020 on 20 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
20TH FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 140 OF 2020
Between:
Indra Mohan Arora. ...Petitioner
and
Chairman/Managing Director and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Ms. Shruti Joshi, the learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. Siddhartha Jain, the learned
counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
We heard learned counsels for the parties, and
proceed to dispose of this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition
to seek the following reliefs :-
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondents to
call for all the records in relation to the
petitioner's bank Loan account.
II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus declaring Payment of entire Interest
on PF amount from date of adjustment of
various staff loan to the date of payment of PF
and Interest for delay.
III. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding Respondent No. 1 to
pay entire Interest for delay period from the
date of dismissal 24/11/2003 to the date of
payment of Gratuity 15.06. 2010 and there after
for the delay period.
IV. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondents to pay
Pension with up-to-date interest for delay
payment.
V. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondents to pay
Medical bills, leave encashment, LTC and Silver
savro which is given to officers after completing
25 years of service.
VI. To issue such other suitable writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper to the circumstances of the case.
VII. To award the cost of the writ petition to the
petitioner."
3. It appears that the petitioner, while serving as
P.O., Agricultural Officer, Scale-I, was removed from
service after issuance of a show-cause notice to him.
The petitioner assailed his removal from service by
preferring Writ Petition (S/B) No. 256 of 2007. In those
proceedings, an interim order was passed by the Court
on 28.04.2009 directing the respondent/ bank to pay the
Provident Fund amount due to the petitioner, as per the
Rules, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. In
pursuance of the said direction, the respondent/ bank
made payment of Rs. 9,40,391.34/- to the petitioner
vide Demand Draft dated 02.06.2009, which was
accepted by the petitioner. It appears that, thereafter,
the petitioner sought to raise claim for interest on the
said amount on the ground that his removal had taken
place on 24.11.2003, whereas the amounts have been
2
paid in the year 2009. The respondent/ bank responded
to the said claim vide letter dated 07.08.2009 informing
that interest was payable to the petitioner only for the
period of three months. The petitioner, thereafter, kept
quiet, and has preferred this Writ Petition in the year
2020, i.e. after a lapse of nearly 11 years of the
issuance of the communication dated 07.08.2009 by the
respondent/ bank.
4. First and foremost, we are of the view that the
petitioner is guilty of gross delay and laches in
approaching the Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved
by non-payment of interest on the amounts released to
him under the interim orders of this Court, he should
have approached the Court within a reasonable period.
There is no explanation provided by the petitioner for his
belated approach to the Court. That apart, a perusal of
Relief-IV shows that the petitioner is now seeking to
stake his claim for pension, which relief was not sought
by him, or not granted to him, in the earlier round.
Pertinently, the aforesaid Writ Petition bearing No. 256
of 2007 (S/B) was eventually dismissed by this Court on
12.05.2011. Even the Review Petition preferred by him
was dismissed by the Court on 01.07.2011.
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought
to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (D) Through LRS.
And Another, Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2013
decided on 11.12.2013, to submit that even a removed
employee was granted pension in that case.
6. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows
that the same relates to a workman covered by the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court relied upon
Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement to grant relief to
the workman in that case. Admittedly, in the present
case, the petitioner was not a workman, and he was an
officer serving in the respondent/ bank. Therefore, he
cannot take advantage of the said Bipartite Settlement.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
this Writ Petition, and dismiss the same.
8. Consequently, pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
MANOJ K. TIWARI, J.
Dt: 20th February, 2023
Rahul
