Telangana High Court
WP/26314/2000 of P.S.Khan, Vs APSRTC., on 30 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26314 of 2000 DATED: 30.12.2005 Between: P.S.Khan petitioner And APSRTC rep by Vice Chairman & Managing Director and others Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 26314 of 2000
DATED: 30.12.2005
Between:
P.S.Khan petitioner
And
APSRTC rep by Vice Chairman & Managing Director and others Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO. 26314 OF 2000
ORAL ORDER:
In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents to payinterest on delayed payment of retirement benefits @ 18 % from the date of his retirement till the actual date of payment.
The petitioner, working as Timmer in the respondent corporation retired from serviceon attaining the age of superannuation on 28.2.2000. It is alleged that nodepartmental proceedings were pending against him as on the date of retirementand the respondent corporation for no reason delayed the payment of retirement andfinally settled the same on 26.9.2000. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writpetition claiming interest @ 18 % for the delayed period.
Per contra, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that the petitionersuffered a punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage for a period ofone year vide proceedings No.M2/118(1)/98-KKD dated 5.2.2000 and that the delaywas caused due to finalisation of last basic pay and audit observations, verificationof old records, wages drawn earlier etc.
Page 1 of 2
Learned Standing Counsel for respondent corporation submitted that the delay inquestion was caused in attending the audit objections, verification of old records andthe same cannot be attributed to the corporation and the petitioner is not entitled toreceive any interest for the delayed payment.
It is expected that retirement benefits of an employee are settled on the date of hisretirement, unless disciplinary proceedings are pending. In the present case, thoughthe corporation has sought to explain the delay, this Court is not totally convincedwith the explanation submitted by the Corporation. However, instead of grantinginterest, it is felt appropriate to award costs. The costs are quantified at Rs.3000/-which shall be paid to the learned counsel for petitioner within a period of six weeksfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
_____________
N.V.RAMANA,J30.12.2005
TVK
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 26314 of 2000
DATED: 30.12.2005
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…