JUDGMENT :

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

2. Admit.

3. Heard forthwith.

4. Heard Mr. Sangam Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.

5. The petitioner is an ex employee of the Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited[‘Corporation’ for short]. He was initially appointed as a Sub-Engineer (Civil) in the service of the Corporation. He was posted at different stations throughout the State during the tenure of his employment. The petitioner retired from the post of Sub Engineer on 31.08.2009, upon attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly, there were no disciplinary proceedings against him or any kind of a claim that the employers had to set-off against his post retiral dues. It is also not in dispute that prior of the petitioner's retirement, a No Dues Certificate was issued by the Office of the Corporation at New Delhi on 04.06.2009, that being the petitioner's last place of posting. The petitioner had an early grievance to make. Post retirement, his retiral dues as well as outstanding of arrears of salary due on the date of retirement were not paid. This led the petitioner to institute Writ -A No. 5590 of 2019, which, by a very usual order of this Court, was summarily parted with on 03.02.2010, in terms of the following order :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has not been released his post retiral benefits after having retired on 31.8.2009.

The respondent No.2 shall proceed to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within 3 months. In the event the petitioner is found entitled for release of any amount, the same shall be released forthwith without any further delay.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

6. After the order dated 03.02.2010 was passed and presumably received by the petitioner in the form of a certified copy, with no communication thereof through any official channel to the Corporation remained uncomplied with, leading the petitioner to prefer representations dated 08.03.2010, 18.05.2010 and 12.06.2010, virtually seeking to draw the Corporation's attention to the order of this Court dated 03.02.2010, earlier mentioned.

7. Since no action in compliance was taken, the petitioner had to move this Court, invoking our contempt jurisdiction vide Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3433 of 2010. Notice in the contempt matter was issued to the Corporation or the officer, so to speak, answerable on behalf of the Corporation, to carry out the orders of this Court. Pending rule issued in the contempt matter, the Corporation paid post retiral benefits to the petitioner under various heads, that include arrears of salary, gratuity and leave encashment. The arrears of salary were paid for various periods of time that they had remained unpaid and all details of these periods are set out in tabular form by the petitioner in paragraph 14 of the writ petition. A perusal of this table shows that arrears of salary were paid for ten different periods of time that these had remained unpaid, apart from various heads, as already said, under which post retiral benefits were due to the petitioner.

8. The petitioner says that though the various sums of money indicated in para 14 have been paid to him, the payment has been made with an unexplained and culpable delay of ten years. The petitioner has, therefore, now come up claiming interest on this sum of money, which has been withheld. The petitioner attempted to enforce his claim for interest on account of the delayed payment of his post retiral dues as also unpaid arrears of salary, that ought to have been paid while in service, by representing the matter to the Corporation once again. The Corporation again, not heeding to the petitioner's plea for the payment of interest on his dues, paid much beyond the time of entitlement. Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court vide-C