ANOOP KUMAR CHOUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim made in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner is payment of interest on the amount due, which was according to the petitioner belatedly paid to him. The facts which are not in dispute are that petitioner was working as Laboratory Assistant. He was not designated as Laboratory Technician, nor was given the benefit of pay of the said post. He was required to approach the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No.2311/2000. The said Original Application was pending when the Tribunal was closed and the Original Application was transmitted to this Court where it was registered as W.P. No.14997/2003. The said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 02.11.2004 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, viz -a -viz similarly placed employees, who were granted benefit of higher pay scale by changing their designation as Laboratory Technician.

(2.) THE order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition was not being complied with and, therefore, petitioner was required to file Contempt Case No.1403/2005. Only after issuance of the notices in the said contempt case, on 07.07.2007 the order was passed by the respondents changing the designation of the post of petitioner as Laboratory Technician in the pay scale of Rs.1200 ­ 2040 with effect from 01.04.1986. The order was brought to the notice of this Court in the contempt case and ultimately such proceedings were closed. However, the fact remains that an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner that he will not claim any interest on the amount from the effective date till the date of order. Only on the basis of such undertaking, the benefit of arrears of salary though was paid to the petitioner but the interest amount was not calculated and that being so, the petitioner is required to file this writ petition.

(3.) A rejoinder is filed by the petitioner but nothing much is stated except that there is no justified reason shown by the respondents explaining the delay caused in making payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner. It is contended that the benefit, which was available to him in the year 1999 was ultimately granted in the year 2007 and the amount has been paid after a long delay, therefore, petitioner still would be entitled to interest on the said amount as claimed in the writ petition.