SHIVANANJAPPA Vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner rendered service in ITI Ltd., Bengaluru - 560 016 with effect from 26.11.1975 till 30.11.2003 i.e., the date on which he was relieved by accepting the offer of voluntary retirement from service. As Rs. 2,68,000.00 payable as retirement benefit was not paid, W.P.No.11817/2006 was filed asking for a mandamus against the respondents to pay the said amount with interest. A submission having been made that the retirement benefit was withheld on account of the pendency of O.S. No. 8307/2003 in the City Civil Court and that the suit having been subsequently disposed of, the claim made for release of the retirement benefit would be considered, the petition was disposed of directing the respondents to process the release within 6 weeks period. CCC No. 727/2007 was filed alleging non-compliance of the direction issued in W.P.No.11817/2006. By an Order dated 13.12.2007, finding that VRS benefits payable has been paid, but there is some amount of delay and as the order did not specifically direct payment of interest, the petition was closed with an observation that if the petitioner wants to have the relief of interest, he should work out the remedy separately. W.P. No. 8231/2008 was filed asking for a mandamus against the respondents to release interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefit of Rs. 2,68,000.00 with effect from December, 2003 to Nov., 2006, total amounting to Rs. 1,44,720.00. Finding that a representation submitted by the petitioner for payment of interest for the delayed period on the retirement benefits is pending, by an Order, dated 20.03.2009, the petition was allowed and the respondents directed to consider the representation in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. (2001) 9 SCC 687 : (AIR 2000 SC 3513 (2). The respondents having notified the petitioner on 17.04.2009, that he is not entitled for the benefit of the payment of interest, as an amount of Rs. 2,52,200.00 out of the terminal benefit payable was held up due to the order passed in O.S. No. 8307/2003 by the City Civil Court, this petition was filed to quash the said communication, produced as Annexure-M along with the writ petition and asking for a mandamus against the respondents for payment of Rs. 1,44,720.00 being the interest at 18% p.a. on the delayed payment of retirement benefits.

(2.) Sri. H. Mohan Kumar, learned advocate contended that the respondents ought to have released the retirement benefits in favour of the petitioner as on the date of retirement itself and there being no justification for withholding of Rs. 2,52,200.00, interest at 18% p.a. for the delay period is liable to be paid. He submitted that the pensionary benefits if had been received and invested in fixed deposit, would have earned interest. He submitted that despite submission of repeated representations and filing of writ petitions, the respondents failed to act diligently and thus made the petitioner to suffer. He contended that the decision of the respondents as at Annexure-M is arbitrary.

(3.) Sri. S.G. Hegde, learned advocate on the other hand contended that a third party Smt. Shantha C. had filed O.S. No. 8307/2003 in the City Civil Court not only against the petitioner but also the respondents and sought for passing a decree of declaration not to disburse the terminal benefits to the petitioner. He submitted that the said suit having been dismissed, Smt. Shantha C. instituted O.S. No. 1803/2005 in the City Civil Court against the petitioner and also the respondents for passing a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,52,200.00, out of the terminal benefits of the petitioner. He submitted that an ad interim order was passed in the said suit on 09.02005 directing the Chairman and Managing Director of ITI Ltd., to maintain status quo with regard to the service benefits of the 1st defendant i.e., the petitioner herein and the said order was in operation up to 07.04.2006. He submitted that soon after the said ad interim order was vacated, the amount payable to the petitioner was released. He further submitted that by keeping in view the order passed in W.P. No. 8231/2008, representation was considered and the petitioner notified of the outcome vide Annexure-M. He submitted that there being no wilful delay in the matter of payment of balance retirement benefits, which had remained undisbursed only on account of the litigation in the City Civil Court, the respondents are justified in declining to accede to the request for payment of interest.