Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1657 (HP)

Rajindra Devi v. State of H. P.

2011-03-23

SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the action of the respondents in delaying the release of salary due from Sept. 2003 to Nov. 2005, in Sept. 2006, i.e. after 2-3 years, may kindly be declared arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to give interest at the rate of 15% pa w.e.f. Sept. 2003 till realization of salary in Sept. 2006 to the applicant, forthwith. (iii) That any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. In terms of order dated 28.9.2005 (Annexure A-2) petitioner’s Original Application was disposed of with the following observations:- “Reply has been filed by the respondents. As per Annexure-A/5 of the Original Application it has been certified that the applicant Smt. Rajindra Devi FHS Chari is working at PHC Chari, as FHS since September, 2003 till date i.e. June, 2005. In the reply it is submitted by the respondents that the respondents are not denying the due and admissible salary of the applicant for the period during which she has already served with them, but releasing of salary is presently subject to the decision of Govt. with regard to her shifting from Primary Health Centre Chari, to the place of vacancy as per proposal being referred to the Govt. and this fact has also been admitted by the respondents in their reply. Taking into consideration the admission on the part of respondent state, respondents are directed to pay due and admissible salary to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of this order. With these aforesaid observation and directions the present Original Application stands finally disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3. Admittedly this order has attained finality. Consequently petitioner’s contention that she be paid interest w.e.f. 2003 onwards is misconceived in law. The Tribunal had directed payment to be made within a period of two months w.e.f. 28.9.2005. 4. In reply filed by the respondents it stands explained that all due and admissible payments were made to the petitioner on 25.9.2006. The delay in releasing the amount according to the respondents is not willful. The delay is attributable due to administrative reasons. 5. The judgment could have been complied with within a reasonable period. 4. In reply filed by the respondents it stands explained that all due and admissible payments were made to the petitioner on 25.9.2006. The delay in releasing the amount according to the respondents is not willful. The delay is attributable due to administrative reasons. 5. The judgment could have been complied with within a reasonable period. It is true that it would have taken some time to obtain certified copy of the judgment but however there are no exact details with regard thereto. Also it may have taken time to process the file in the appropriate department. Consequently I feel that six months time was sufficient enough for the respondents to have complied with the judgment. The payment ought to have been made on or before 30.4.2006. Consequently petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% on the sum of `2,45,201/- w.e.f. 1.5.2006 up to 25.9.2006. Respondents shall release the sum within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.