LACHHMAN SINGH TOOR versus BALJIT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Lachhman Singh Toor v. Baljit Singh - COCP-211-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4802 (26 July 2006)

COCP No.211 of 2005 -: 1 :-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.211 of 2005

Date of decision: July 27, 2006.

Dr. Lachhman Singh Toor

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Dr. Baljit Singh & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Pawan Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties at length, it transpires that arrears of leave encashment and gratuity etc. amounting to Rs.88933/-, which became due to the petitioner on 12.4.1996, have been actually paid to him on 9.1.2004 and 3.3.2004 respectively. Similarly, the petitioner, who retired on 30.4.1988, was paid the arrears of pension on 30.6.1996 only. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay in payment of these arrears.

There can, thus, be no doubt that in terms of the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, which was further upheld by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is entitled to be paid interest @ 12% per annum on these delayed payments. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest @ 12 % per annum to the COCP No.211 of 2005 -: 2 :-

petitioner on a sum of Rs.88,933/- with effect from 1.5.1996 till 31.12.2003.

similarly, the petitioner shall also be paid interest at the same rate on the arrears of pension amounting to Rs.99,896/- with effect from 1.8.1988 till 30.6.1996. The aforesaid interest amount shall be paid to the petitioner by the respondents and/or the District Treasury Officer, Jalandhar within a period of two months from today, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to get these proceedings revived. It is made clear that it shall be the personal responsibility of the respondents to issue necessary instructions, if so required, to the District Treasury Officer, Jalandhar to do the needful.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

July 27, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge

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

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.