TULSI RAM ARYA Vs. CHAIRMAN DELHI TRANSCO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cross appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31.01.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 618/2001. The appellant in LPA No. 219/2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "writ petitioner") had preferred the Writ Petition No.618/2001, interalia, challenging the action of the respondent in withholding the retirement benefits payable to him and had made the following prayers:-

(2.) The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 31.01.2013 which is impugned in the present appeals. By the impugned judgment, the appellant in LPA No. 495/2013, BSES Yamuna Power Limited was directed to release the service dues including dues towards terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner. BSES Yamuna Power Limited was further directed to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount payable from the date of filing the writ petition till the date of payment. It was further directed that in the event the amount due was not paid within a period of four months from the date of the judgment then the writ petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum thereafter. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment in respect of the quantum of interest as directed to be paid by the learned Single Judge and is seeking both enhancement of the rate of interest as well as the period for which interest is payable. It is contended that the interest should be payable from the date when the retirement benefits became due and not from the date of the filing of the writ petition as directed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) The appellant in LPA 495/2013 (BSES Yamuna Power Limited) was impleaded as respondent no. 3 in the writ petition. It is contended on behalf of the BSES Yamuna Power Limited that in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the writ petitioner is not entitled to gratuity or pension till the conclusion of the judicial proceedings pending against him. The writ petitioner superannuated prior to the unbundling of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB). It is further contended that the obligation to pay terminal benefits payable to the employees of DVB who superannuated prior to the unbundling of DVB would lie with the Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Terminal Benefits Fund, 2002 and BSES Yamuna Power Limited has no role to play with regard to the payment of pension or terminal benefits to the writ petitioner.