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

2009 Supreme(Ori) 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, J.
ORISSA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
BRUNDABAN SAHU AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 25-11-2009

The employer must assist the employee in obtaining post-retirement benefits, and the retired employee is entitled to interest on the pension amount due to negligence in payment by the employer.

Headnote:

Premature Retirement Order - Civil Revision - Title Suit No. 2 of 1985, Second Appeal No. 208 of 1989 - O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others - State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai Patel - The judgment discusses the entitlement to uninterrupted service with full back wages, calculation of back wages, consequential benefits, and post-retirement benefits. It also addresses the payment of interest on delayed pension and the court's direction to grant interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the delay in making payment of pension.

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the premature retirement order as void & illegal and claiming uninterrupted service with full back wages. The suit was decreed, appealed, and ultimately confirmed by the Court. The decree holder filed an execution case for the claimed amount, including interest, which the Judgment debtor objected to, leading to the challenge in this civil revision.

Finding of the Court:

The executing Court upheld the calculation sheet filed by the decree holder, finding the Judgment debtor's offer of payment in monthly installments to be illegal and unacceptable. The Court also directed both parties to appear before the executing Court to file a better calculation sheet towards back wages and post-retirement benefits.

Issues: Entitlement to back wages, calculation of claim amount, payment of interest on delayed pension, and compliance with the decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff is entitled to all back wages and consequential service benefits till retirement, as well as post-retirement benefits. The employer becomes a trustee in respect of the sum due and must assist the employee in obtaining post-retirement benefits. The Court may grant interest on delayed payment of pension, and the retired employee is entitled to interest on the pension amount due to negligence in payment by the employer.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision is disposed of with the direction to grant interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the delay in making payment of pension from the date of the decree till the payment is made.

JUDGMENT :

Sanju Panda, J. - In this civil revision the Judgment debtor-Petitioner has challenged the Order Dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur in Execution Proceeding No. 3 of 2003 filed by Opp. Party No. 1 decree holder. By the impugned order the decree holder was directed to file next step for execution of the decree.

2. The facts as narrated in the revision are as follows:

Opp. Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1985 before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Berhampur for declaring that the premature retirement order passed by the Defendant was void & illegal & he was entitled to uninterrupted service with full back wages. The said suit was decreed by the Learned Civil Judge declaring the premature retirement of the Plaintiff vide Order Dated 31.12.1984 as void & illegal & permanently restraining the Defendants from giving effect to the said order It was further declared therein that the Plaintiff still continued to be in uninterrupted service & was entitled to full back wages, Against the said Judgment & decree, the Defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 71 of 1988 before the Learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ganjam who, vide Judgment dated 12.5.1989 allowed the appeal & reversed the Judgment & decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the said order, the Plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No. 208 of 1989 before this Court. This Court on 16 8 2002 set aside the Judgment & decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court & confirmed that of the Trial Court. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the execution case. He computed his claim amounting to Rs. 12,22,497 plus Rs. 2,20,250 towards interest at the rate of 12 % per annum calculated upto 31 12 2002 plus cost of the suit. The Judgment debtor filed its objection. The decree holder filed a revised calculation sheet of his claim amounting to Rs. 15,70,429. To the said calculation of the decree holder, the Judgment debtor filed counter along with a calculation sheet. It admitted that the decree holder was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,79,199 out of which Rs. 63,059 had already been paid to the decree holder. Out of the rest amount of Rs. 2 16,141 a sum of Rs. 26,282 was required to be deposited towards the Provident Fund in order to regularize the Employees' Provident Fund account of the decree holder. Therefore, the decree holder was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,89,859. The Judgment debtor conceded to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,89,859 in ten equal installments, each installment being payable at an interval of two months. The decree holder being present in the Court agreed to receive the said amount without foregoing his claim as per the decree. Since the Judgment debtor did not pay the amount as per the decree, the executing Court directed the decree holder to file next step for execution of the decree. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision by the Judgment debtor.

3. While the Learned Counsel for the Judgment debtor-Petitioner submitted that during pendency of the civil revision, the Petitioner has paid some amount in pursuance of the direction of this Court, he contended that there being no direction in the decree to pay interest on the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, the decree holder is not entitled to interest on the said, amount. The executing Court, however, accepted the calculation sheet filed by the decree holder. Therefore, the same is liable to set aside as the executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree.

4. Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 decree holder submitted that since the premature retirement order passed by the authority was void & illegal, the decree holder was entitled to uninterrupted service with full back wages. The decree holder calculated the back wages, CPF contribution, consequential benefits, arrear A.D.A, Surrender Leave Salary, interest on the aforesaid amount, house rent allowance, etc. & also the amount of gratuity & the interest payable on the gratui









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
whatsapp-icon Back to top