Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Dupendar Singh Virdi - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 6446 of 2008
Decided On : 06-12-2017
Interest - Retiral Dues - The court found that the delay in payment of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner was procedural due to the absence of nomination by the employee and the absence of the petitioner's name in the service excerpts. Therefore, the claim for payment of interest on delayed payment of post-retiral benefits was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought payment of statutory interest on retiral dues and arrears of pension, which were paid about 13 years after the death of his father. The petitioner's name was not found in the service excerpts of the employee, and the delay in payment was attributed to procedural issues.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in payment of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner was not intentional but procedural due to the absence of nomination by the employee and the absence of the petitioner's name in the service excerpts. As a result, the claim for payment of interest on delayed payment of post-retiral benefits was dismissed.
Issues: Delay in payment of post-retiral benefits, Claim for payment of interest on delayed payment
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in payment was found to be procedural due to the absence of nomination by the employee and the absence of the petitioner's name in the service excerpts, leading to the dismissal of the claim for payment of interest on delayed payment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substance in the claim for payment of interest on delayed payment of post-retiral benefits.
JUDGMENT
Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Prayer in the writ-petition is for payment of statutory interest on the amount of retiral dues, arrears of pension etc. which were paid to the petitioner about 13 years after the death of his father.
2. Admittedly, in the service excerpts of the employee namely, Pritam Singh Virdi, petitioner''s name does not find place. It is also an admitted position that GPF, Leave encashment and Gratuity amounts have been paid to the petitioner on 16.08.2007 and arrears of pension on 21.08.2007. Plea taken by the petitioner is, that Miss Jagjeet Kaur who claimed herself legal guardian of the petitioner submitted a claim on behalf of the petitioner on 01.03.1994. On this, stand taken by the respondents is that without verifying the persons who could have claimed post-retiral benefits on death of the employee-Pritam Singh Virdi, claim of the petitioner could not have been processed. It is stated that till the post-retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner he had not submitted succession certificate, however, in compliance of order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3755 of 2005 and Contempt (Civil) Case No. 947 of 2005, post-retiral benefits accrued on death of late Pritam Singh Virdi were paid to the petitioner.
3. In the above facts, I find that the delay caused in payment of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner was not intentional rather, procedural due to absence of nomination of the petitioner by the employee-Pritam Singh Virdi and in absence of his name in the service excerpts of the said employee.
4. Accordingly, claim for payment of interest on delayed payment of post-retiral benefits cannot be ordered.
5. Finding no substance in the writ petition, it is dismissed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
