JAGAT NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. In W.P. (s) No. 1016/2004, this Court directed as under: -

(2.) IN para 4 of the return, it is mentioned that all the retiral dues are paid. However, the dates so mentioned in this paragraph make it clear that the amount was belatedly paid to the petitioner. The respondents have not assigned any reason which shows that the delay in payment is attributable to the petitioner.

(3.) THIS Court in a recent judgment reported in : 2013 (4) MPLJ 35 (Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P. & Ors.) held that the retiral dues are property within the meaning of Article 300 -A of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in : 2013 AIR SCW 4749 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr.) has taken the same view. The Apex Court in : 1994 (2) SCC 240 (G) (Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and others opined that when the delay in making the payment of retiral dues is attributable to the department, it must carry interest.