SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2986 of 2023
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Shivam Srivastava, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jatin Singh, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, GP, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Interest - Pensionary Benefits - The court dismissed the petition seeking directions for interest on pensionary benefits, monetary compensation, and legal expenses, as the petitioner had already received pension and arrears pursuant to a previous order.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought directions for interest on pensionary benefits, monetary compensation, and legal expenses, claiming that the pensionary benefits were not granted by the respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner had already received pension and arrears pursuant to a previous order, and seeking interest on arrears was barred by delay and laches.

Issues: Dispute over pensionary benefits, interest on arrears, monetary compensation, and legal expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's claim for interest on arrears was dismissed due to delay and laches, as the petitioner had already received pension and arrears pursuant to a previous order.

Final Decision: The present petition seeking directions for interest on pensionary benefits, monetary compensation, and legal expenses was dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking directions to respondents to pay an interest @ 18% per annum to petitioner over the pensionary benefits w.e.f. 21.02.2023 till realization, to pay an amount of Rs.5 lacs in form of monetary compensation and Rs.2 lacs towards legal expenses borne by the petitioner.

2. It is not in dispute that petitioner has retired from service on 31.08.1986 and the since pensionary benefits were not granted by the respondents, he filed C.W. No. 7273/1999 which was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2000 observing as under:

    "Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions from Lt.Ruby Singh, who is present in Court, states that the deficiency in the pensionable service has been condoned and the forms have already been sent and that the petitioner would get his pension in accordance with the Rules.

    In view of the above statement, the petition does not survive and the same is dismissed as not surviving. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court for revival of this petition if the communication received by him is contrary to the statement made by the counsel for the respondents.

3. It is further not in dispute that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2000, petitioner had received pension as well as arrears. Now, vide the present petition, petitioner seeks interest on arrears which is barred by virtue of delay and laches.

4. In view of above, present petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top