D.D.TEWARI (D) THR. LRS. Vs UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LD.&ORS
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: C.A. No.-007113-007113 / 2014
Diary number: 19570 / 2011
Advocates: MILIND KUMAR Vs
RAJESH MAHALE
Page 1
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25015 of 2011)
D.D. TEWARI(D) THR. LRS. ……APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties.
The appellant (since deceased) is aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA
Page 2
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 2
No. 1818 of 2010 in affirming the judgment of the
learned single Judge passed in C.W.P. No. 1048 of 2010
wherein he was not awarded interest for the delayed
payment of pension and gratuity amount, for which
he was legally entitled to. Therefore, the appellant
approached this Court for grant of interest on the
delayed payment on the retiral benefits of pension and
gratuity payable to him by the respondents.
3. The appellant was appointed to the post of Line
Superintendent on 30.08.1968 with the Uttar Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. In the year 1990, he was
promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his
service, the appellant remained in charge of number of
transformers after getting issued them from the stores
and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the
stores. While depositing the damaged transformers in
the stores, some shortage in transformers oil and
breakages of the parts of damaged transformers were
erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and
Page 3
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 3
later on it was held that for the shortages and
breakages there is no negligence on the part of the
appellant. On attaining the age of superannuation, he
retired from service on 31.10.2006. The retiral
benefits of the appellant were withheld by the
respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was
due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were
not pending against the appellant on the date of his
retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the
High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the
respondents regarding payment of pension and release of
the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an
interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments.
The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition
vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the
action of the respondents in withholding the amount of
gratuity and directing the respondents to release the
withheld amount of gratuity within three months without
awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The
Page 4
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 4
High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court
particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs.
M. Padmanabhan Nair1, wherein this Court reiterated its
earlier view holding that 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 dealt with the penalty of payment of interest
at the current market rate till actual payment to the
employees. The said legal principle laid down by this
Court still holds good in so far as awarding the
interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is
concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to
in the judgment of the learned single Judge without
assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as
claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of
1
(1985) 1 SCC 429
Page 5
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 5
the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved
of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before
Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench
of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is
impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact
that there is no order passed by the learned single
Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the
appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by
him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault
with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the
appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.
The correctness of the order is under challenge in this
appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant
retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the
learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant
facts and the legal position has given a direction to
the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld
Page 6
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 6
pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the
legal representatives of the deceased employee without
awarding interest for which the appellant is legally
entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its
appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of
justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable
by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the
deceased employee till the date of payment as per the
aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in
the judgment referred to supra. We have to award
interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount
of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be
paid by the respondent.
5. It is needless to mention that the respondents
have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount
for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for
payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of
gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and
Page 7
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 7
circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that
in the case in hand.
6. For the reasons stated above, we award interest
at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and
gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the
date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid
within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to
the deceased employee. With the above directions, this
appeal is allowed.
……………………………………………………J. [DIPAK MISRA]
……………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi, August 1, 2014
Page 8
C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011 8