Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2176 (RAJ)

V. P. Saxena v. Raj. Civil Service

2006-07-11

R.C.GANDHI

body2006
Judgment R.C. Gandhi, J.-Petitioner was working as Superintendenting Engineer with the respondents. He retired from service on 310.1992. While releasing the retiral benefit vide order dated 23.06.2001, an amount of Rs. 18,051/-was recovered from his gratuity. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Court seeking to quash the said order. The writ petition came to be decided on 19.08.2002 quashing the order of deduction of the amount from the gratuity and further direction was issued to make payment of interest on pension amount and also to pay interest w.e.f. 02.01.1999 in respect of other items. The amount was not paid. The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No. 318/03. The respondents passed an order dated 07.08.2003 whereby a sum of Rs. 16,304/-was directed to be deducted from the pension of the petitioner instead of his gratuity. 2. The petitioner challenged the said order besides the recovery of sale tax to the tune of Rs. 13,344/-and electricity bill for a sum of Rs. 99/-. The Tribunal quashed the recovery of the sales tax and electricity bill but did not return any finding on the interest claimed. 3. Petitioner has presented this petition seeking direction to the respondents not to recover the amount of house rent and to make payment of interest of Rs. 48,282/-for delay payment of the retiral benefits. .4. Respondents in their reply denied the entitlement of the petitioner asserting that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at the bar that he does not press the relief part to the extent of recovery of the house rent. The respondents are, therefore, at liberty to recover it. 7. So far as the payment of interest is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner has given the details of the interest in Para 3 of the writ petition which is accrued to the petitioner. He has further submitted that the respondents in Para 5 of their reply before the Tribunal has admitted the entitlement of the petitioner in respect of interest to the extent of Rs. 38,837/-instead of his claimed amount of interest. It is also admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has been held entitled to the relief of interest on the unpaid retiral benefits in Writ Petition No. 183/04. 8. 38,837/-instead of his claimed amount of interest. It is also admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has been held entitled to the relief of interest on the unpaid retiral benefits in Writ Petition No. 183/04. 8. Learned Counsel for respondents also submitted that the respondents have filed amended reply before this Court whereby the entitlement of interest amount has been shown to the tune of Rs. 31,817/-. But the respondents have not disputed the stand taken before the Tribunal for entitlement of interest payable to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 38,837/-which is the admission of the respondents. Admission made by the party in the pleading cannot be permitted to be withdrawn and take a different stand. It has to be read against such party unless he convincingly wriggles out therefrom. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents could not convince the Court by furnishing details as to why the admission made early in their reply be not read against the respondents. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 38,837/-within eight weeks.