Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1520 (RAJ)

B. L. Agrawal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-09-20

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, ASHOK PARIHAR

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant herein filed a writ petition before this Court, claiming following reliefs (A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to immediately release/sanction the pension to the petitioner commencing from 1.8.1993 to date onward. (B) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioner the commuted amount of pension, Gratuity, PF etc. admissible to him under the Rules. (C) The respondent be also directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of his Insurance. (D) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be further directed to pay to the petitioner his medical bills amount and the amount of T.A. that are pending with the Department. (E) The respondents be further directed to pay interest @ 18% on the total amount as aforesaid due to the petitioner at the current market rate as per the observation of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, given in the similar cases from time to time. (F) The respondents be further directed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and great sufferings. (G) The respondents be further directed to pay to the petitioner the amount of expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment and medicines, since he was not supplied the Medical Diary, to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The writ petition was contested by the respondents. On 30.2.1998 (sic 13.2.1998 ?), learned Single Judge of this Court has passed the following order:- "Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent State, submits that all the money due to the petitioner has already been paid and if the petitioner still thinks that his claim has not been satisfied, he can make a representation ventilating his grievances and giving the statics and basis on which he claims that still his payment remains unsatisfied. If the petitioner files a representation along with certified copy of this order before the Competent Authority, the said Authority will consider it and pass appropriate order within a period of eight weeks and if petitioner's claim fully or partly is accepted, the payment shall be made immediately thereafter. The application filed by Shri Anand Sharma for impleadment is dismissed as withdrawn. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of." 3. The application filed by Shri Anand Sharma for impleadment is dismissed as withdrawn. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of." 3. According to the directions/observations made by learned Single Judge above, the petitioner-appellant filed a representation which was disposed of. According to the Government, interest on all the due claims is not maintainable. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, at the directions of the Court, compliance report was filed by the State Government reporting therein payment of pension, Gratuity, commuted pension, General Provident Fund and State Insurance amount. 5. According to Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, since the amount of pension and other payments were made belatedly, the petitioner-appellant is entitled for interest on the belated payment. He also submitted that because of non-payment of the pensionary benefits, the appellant was compelled to borrow money from third party at a higher rate of interest for his treatment and construction of house and, therefore, the State may be directed to reimburse him the interest on the belated payment of pensionary benefits. 6. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that pension and other retiral benefits have been paid to the appellant belatedly. In our opinion, there is absolutely no reason for not making the payment for years together. We, therefore, direct the respondents to pay to the appellant interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on the delayed payment, with effect from the date of retirement till the respective payments have been made to him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs State of UP and others ( AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3513 [2j] , awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from the date of retirement till the payment is made. There is yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of (2) State of Kerala and others Vs M. Padmanabhan Nair AIR 1985 Supreme Court 356 . 7. In so far as the relief claimed for payment of interest on the amount borrowed for medical expenses, this Court will not be in a position to grant any relief since the heart-operation itself was performed after the retirement of the appellant.With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal Disposed of. *******