Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, R.C. Khulbe, JJ.
Bhupesh Kumar Rai - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 687 of 2022
Decided On : 21-12-2022
7th Pay Commission - Arrears Claim - The court directed the respondents to pay the arrears to the petitioner for the period of 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2021 within six months, and in case of delay, the petitioner would be entitled to receive interest at 6% per annum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought arrears in difference of pay for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2021 due to not being given the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission, along with consequential relief for employer's contribution to the Provident Fund and interest at 12% per annum.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to pay the arrears to the petitioner within six months, with the petitioner entitled to receive interest at 6% per annum in case of delay. The respondents were also directed to examine the second relief sought by the petitioner and take necessary steps within six weeks.
Issues: Arrears claim due to non-benefit of 7th Pay Commission, financial stringency of respondents, and consequential relief for employer's contribution to the Provident Fund.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found in favor of the petitioner, considering similar cases and granting time for payment of arrears due to the employee. The court also emphasized the entitlement of the petitioner to receive interest in case of delay.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the arrears to the petitioner within six months, with the petitioner entitled to receive interest at 6% per annum in case of delay. The respondents were also directed to examine the second relief sought by the petitioner and take necessary steps within six weeks.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - Issue notice.
2. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sadaf, the learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3. The grievance raised by the petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, is with regard to his claim for arrears in difference of pay for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2021, on account of the petitioner not being given the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission. The petitioner seeks consequential relief that the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund be made on the basis of the enhanced pay for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2021. The petitioner also seeks arrears, along with interest @ 12% per annum.
4. The submission of Mr. Khan, the learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, is that respondent nos. 2 and 3 could not make payment to the petitioner due to financial stringency.
5. In other similar cases, we have allowed the claim, and granted time of six months to the respondents to make payment of arrears due to the employee.
6. We, accordingly, allow the present Writ Petition, and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears due to him, on account of the petitioner not being given the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission, for the period 01.01.2016 to 31.08.2021, within six months from today.
7. In case, the same is not paid within the said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive interest on the same @ 6% per annum. The respondents should also examine the second relief sought by the petitioner, as aforesaid, and take necessary steps in that regard within six weeks.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Entitlement to arrears due to non-benefit of 7th Pay Commission and entitlement to interest in case of delay in payment.
The court directed the respondents to pay the arrears of pay on implementation of the 7th Pay Commission Report, enhanced payment towards Leave Encashment, and enhanced payment towards Provident Fund....
The court's decision was influenced by the undisputed claim for pay fixation and arrears of pay under the 7th Pay Commission, and the financial stringency of the respondent Sugar Company Ltd.
The court highlights the obligation of the employer in ensuring timely salary payments and compliance with employee benefits regulations.
Financial constraints of the respondent cannot be used as a reason to deny the payment of retiral dues to the retired employee.
Paucity of funds cannot be cited as a reason to deny the payment of retiral dues to a retired employee.
Court directs payment of delayed retirement benefits arrears with 6% interest per 15th wage settlement.
Retired employees entitled to retrospective wage settlement arrears including interest at 6% for delay.
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
