Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA versus SATBIR SINGH PADALA.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union of India v. Satbir Singh Padala. - CWP-14010-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6043 (28 August 2006)

CWP No. 14010 of 2006 Page numbers

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

CWP No. 14010 of 2006

Date of Decision: 5.9.2006

Union of India

....Petitioner

Versus

Satbir Singh Padala.

....Respondents.

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand.

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

...

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

The solitary grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is in respect of interest awarded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Tribunal) to the respondents on account of delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is not a matter of dispute, that the respondent retired on 31.12.2002. He was paid pension, coupled with the retiral benefits, as also some component of his salary for the period from 28.1.2002 to 20.10.2002 after he approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.

No.947/PB of 2003. Interest has been granted to the respondent in the following manner:-

"Applicant has claimed payment of interest on GPF also, which amount, in fact, belongs to him and was with the respondents as CWP No. 14010 of 2006 Page numbers

deposit. The amount of Rs.92,866/- has been released to the applicant in August, 2003. In the opinion of this Court, the applicant is entitled to interest at the available rate on this amount which is to be calculated upto the last date of the month preceding the month of payment i.e. as on 31st July, 2003.

Same has not been included in the payment made to the applicant. Respondents are directed to work out the interest w.e.f. the date of retirement upto 31st

July, 2003 and pay the

same to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He is also entitled to the payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of provisional pension, released to him, w.e.f. 1.1.2003 upto 31st December, 2003, which main amount has already been paid to him as mentioned above."

Having examined the delay and the rate of interest awarded to the respondent by the Administrative Tribunal in its order, relevant portion of which has been extracted above, we are satisfied, that the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal calls for no interference, whatsoever.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge.

( S.D. Anand )

Judge.

5.9.2006

sk.


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.