Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 190 (UTT)

Indra Mohan Arora v. Chairman/Managing Director

2023-02-20

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. We heard learned counsels for the parties, and proceed to dispose of this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition to seek the following reliefs :- “I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to call for all the records in relation to the petitioner's bank Loan account. II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Payment of entire Interest on PF amount from date of adjustment of various staff loan to the date of payment of PF and Interest for delay. III. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 1 to pay entire Interest for delay period from the date of dismissal 24/11/2003 to the date of payment of Gratuity 15.06. 2010 and there after for the delay period. IV. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to pay Pension with up-to-date interest for delay payment. V. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to pay Medical bills, leave encashment, LTC and Silver savro which is given to officers after completing 25 years of service. VI. To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to the circumstances of the case. VII. To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 3. It appears that the petitioner, while serving as P.O., Agricultural Officer, Scale-I, was removed from service after issuance of a show-cause notice to him. The petitioner assailed his removal from service by preferring Writ Petition (S/B) No. 256 of 2007. In those proceedings, an interim order was passed by the Court on 28.04.2009 directing the respondent/ bank to pay the Provident Fund amount due to the petitioner, as per the Rules, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. In pursuance of the said direction, the respondent/ bank made payment of Rs. 9,40,391.34/- to the petitioner vide Demand Draft dated 02.06.2009, which was accepted by the petitioner. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner sought to raise claim for interest on the said amount on the ground that his removal had taken place on 24.11.2003, whereas the amounts have been paid in the year 2009. 9,40,391.34/- to the petitioner vide Demand Draft dated 02.06.2009, which was accepted by the petitioner. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioner sought to raise claim for interest on the said amount on the ground that his removal had taken place on 24.11.2003, whereas the amounts have been paid in the year 2009. The respondent/ bank responded to the said claim vide letter dated 07.08.2009 informing that interest was payable to the petitioner only for the period of three months. The petitioner, thereafter, kept quiet, and has preferred this Writ Petition in the year 2020, i.e. after a lapse of nearly 11 years of the issuance of the communication dated 07.08.2009 by the respondent/ bank. 4. First and foremost, we are of the view that the petitioner is guilty of gross delay and laches in approaching the Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved by non-payment of interest on the amounts released to him under the interim orders of this Court, he should have approached the Court within a reasonable period. There is no explanation provided by the petitioner for his belated approach to the Court. That apart, a perusal of Relief-IV shows that the petitioner is now seeking to stake his claim for pension, which relief was not sought by him, or not granted to him, in the earlier round. Pertinently, the aforesaid Writ Petition bearing No. 256 of 2007 (S/B) was eventually dismissed by this Court on 12.05.2011. Even the Review Petition preferred by him was dismissed by the Court on 01.07.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. S.K. Kool (D) Through LRS. And Another, Civil Appeal No. 10956 of 2013 decided on 11.12.2013, to submit that even a removed employee was granted pension in that case. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment shows that the same relates to a workman covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court relied upon Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement to grant relief to the workman in that case. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was not a workman, and he was an officer serving in the respondent/ bank. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the said Bipartite Settlement. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this Writ Petition, and dismiss the same. 8. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was not a workman, and he was an officer serving in the respondent/ bank. Therefore, he cannot take advantage of the said Bipartite Settlement. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this Writ Petition, and dismiss the same. 8. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.