Advocates:
ANSAR AHMAD CHAUDHARYT. V. GEORGE

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 184 of 2008

PETITIONER:

S.K. DUA

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2008

BENCH:

C.K. THAKKER & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 21311 OF 2005

C.K Thakker, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an

order passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana at Chandigarh on July 7, 2005 in Writ

Petition (C) No. 10025 of 2005. By the

impugned order, the High Court dismissed the

petition in limine relegating the appellant \026

writ petitioner to avail a remedy by

approaching a Civil Court.

3. Facts in brief are that the appellant

was working as an Engineer-in-Chief in the

Department of Irrigation, Haryana. According

to him, he joined the service in Irrigation

Department of the erstwhile State of Punjab in

August, 1961 and was allocated to the

Department of Irrigation and Power in the

State of Haryana. He was promoted as Engineer-

in-Chief on May 31, 1996 and worked in that

capacity till he attained the age of

superannuation in June, 1998. The appellant

had an unblemished record of service for 37

years. During the course of his duties as

Head of the Department, he submitted reports

in or about April-May, 1998 to the Government

highlighting certain irregularities and mal-

practices said to have been committed by Mr.

S.Y. Quraishi, the then Secretary, Irrigation

& Power and requested the Government to make

enquiry through Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI). According to the

appellant, in pursuance of the complaint made

by him, the Government removed Mr.

Quraishi as Secretary, Irrigation allowing him

to work only as Secretary, Department of

Power.

4. The appellant has alleged that, as a

measure of vendetta, Mr. Quraishi organized to

send the appellant on deputation on May 15,

1998 to a lower and unimportant specially

created post of Engineer-in-Chief, Command

Area Development Agency by upgrading it just

few weeks before his retirement. In addition

to the said action, the appellant was served

with three charge-sheets/ show cause notices

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 5

in June, 1998, few days before his retirement.

The appellant, however, retired on June 30,

1998 on reaching the age of superannuation.

The appellant was paid provisional pension,

but other retiral benefits were not given to

him which included Commuted Value of Pension,

Leave Encashment, Gratuity, etc. totaling to

about Rs. 12 lakhs. They were withheld till

finalization of disciplinary proceedings. The

appellant submitted replies to the charge-

sheets/ show cause notices, inter alia,

denying allegations and asserting that they

were uncalled for and were issued with mala

fide intention and oblique motive. He further

submitted that he had acted in public interest

in salvaging damage likely to be caused to

public exchequer. The replies submitted by

the appellant were accepted by the authorities

and the appellant was exonerated of all the

charges. All retiral benefits were thereafter

given to him between June 11 and July 18,

2002. Thus, according to the appellant though

he retired in June, 1998, retiral benefits to

which he was otherwise entitled, were given to

him after four years of his superannuation.

5. The appellant has stated that, in the

aforesaid circumstances, he was entitled to

interest on the amount which had been withheld

by the respondents and paid to him after

considerable delay. He, therefore, made

several representations. He also issued legal

notice on June 3, 2005 claiming interest at

the rate of 18% per annum for delayed payment.

He had invited the attention of the Government

to Administrative Instructions issued by the

Government under which an employee is entitled

to claim interest. Even otherwise, the a