DULARIA Vs. NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner retired from service on 30.9.2002. She alleges to have not been paid her retiral benefits of gratuity, balance provident fund and arrears of pension salary etc. by the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to pay her entire balance retiral dues at the bank lending rate interest from the date it has become due or at 10% compound interest since the amount was kept by the respondents illegally with them. The counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.7.2006 passed in Special Appeal No.693 of 2006, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar and another Vs. Smt. Rajji submits that delay in payment was due to financial crunches and was not deliberate or willful and that in similar matters this Court has considered the question of rate of interest allowed simple interest at the lesser rate. The controversy in the Special Appeal was considered by the Court that-

(2.) The Court in the operative portion of the judgment dated 6.7.2006 held that- Learned counsel for the respondent, opposing the appeal, submitted that the judgment impugned in this appeal does not require any interference. He, however, admitted that all the retiral benefits were actually paid in time and the dispute pertains only to the revised gratuity and pension for the period as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, it appears from the submissions made before us and the pleadings that the petitioner respondent was getting pension regularly after the retirement and other retiral benefits were also paid from time to time and only the arrears on account of revision of pay scale accrued in pension and gratuity was not paid. It is also not disputed before us that this situation is not only in respect of petitioner-respondent but has prevailed in respect of other employees also. It is also not the case of the petitioner-respondent that he has only been discriminated. Therefore, keeping in view all these aspects and also looking to the facts of the case and also keeping in view that only the revised pension and benefits for a period of two years could not be paid and the rate of interest prevailing in the Banks and Govt. departments have reduced substantially during the aforesaid period, we are of the view that 10% interest on compound basis allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge is excessive.

(3.) He further submits that that the Nagar Nigam is already facing great hardship on account of financial constraint and thus it would be equitable in the interest of justice that the rate of interest may be at least lower and simple.