P.V.NANDAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant for interest on the ground that the interest should have been claimed in appropriate proceedings is not proper in view of the fact that in the facts of the instant case, the appropriate proceedings claiming interest could only have been a writ petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in S. K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another [2008 KHC 4047] to contend that the question of interest of retirement benefits is to be considered by this Court itself. In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the Apex Court considered the contentions and found that if there are statutory rules, the appellant could claim payment of interest on the basis of the said rules. But, even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, contended that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant ought to have availed other remedies was not correct or proper.