Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LALA RAM versus UNION OF INDIA THRO. G.M., CENTRAL RAILWAY BOMBAY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lala Ram v. Union Of India Thro. G.M., Central Railway Bombay & Others - WRIT - A No. 37370 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 5095 (3 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37370 of 2001

Lala Ram

Vs.

Union of India & Ors,.

**********

Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 1st June, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 878 of 1996. By the said application, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 22nd March, 1996 passed by the Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Central Railway, Jhansi by which certain amount had been paid to the petitioner as arrears of pension but interest has not been awarded. The Tribunal by means of the judgment and order dated 1st June, 2001 dismissed the Original Application on the ground that when the petitioner had filed the earlier Original Application No. 66 of 1992 for payment of pension the Tribunal had not issued directions for payment of interest.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier Original Application No. 66 of 1992 relief for interest on delayed payment for pensionery benefit had not been sought and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the subsequent Original Application No. 878 of 1996 on this ground.

We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the records we find that in the earlier Original Application there was a serious dispute as to whether the petitioner was entitled to payment of pension or not. It was this dispute that was resolved by the Tribunal in the year 1996 and immediately thereafter the post retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner.  In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that interest should have been awarded since the amount actually became due earlier cannot be accepted as it cannot be said that there was any willful delay on the part of the respondents, which could have been entitled the petitioner to claim the interest.

Such being the position, there is no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 1st June, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.    

Date: 3.3.2006

NSC


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.