1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Mohan Lal vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 April, 2019
Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55202 of 2015 Petitioner :- Mohan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.D. Misra,Ganesh Datt Mishra,Jagdish Pathak,Sri Sachindra Upadhyay
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.D. Mishra for respondent nos.2, 3 and 5, Sri Jagdish Pathak for respondent no.6 and perused the record.
Petitioner was employed on the post of Tubewell Operator in the respondents Society and has superannuated on 31.8.2009. It appears that his retiral benefits were not released by the Authorities, on account of which he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.20473 of 2011 in which following directions were issued by this Court on 15.04.2011:
"Considering the facts and circumstances, writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make fresh representation with respect to his claim within a period of six weeks from today before respondent no.6, General Manager/Unit Incharge, Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Ramghat Road, Aligarh and in case, any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with relevant rules by means of reasoned and speaking order by respondent no.6 within a further period of two months from the date of making of the representation. In case, the claim of the petitioner is found to be genuine and admissible under the relevant rules by respondent no.6, he shall ensure the payment within a period of six weeks from the date of passing of the order on the representation."
It appears that despite the aforesaid direction, the amount was not paid. Though the respondents admitted liability to pay a sum of Rs.5,67,973/-. A Contempt Petition No.4091 of 2011 accordingly was filed, in which a direction was issued to pay interest @ 12% per annum on quantified sum of Rs.5,67,973/- with effect from 19.08.2011 till the date of actual payment.
The direction issued on 14.05.2013 was then challenged by the contemnor in Special Appeal No.888 of 2013. The special appeal Court modified the direction of learned Single Judge and reduced the rate at which interest was to be paid i.e. from 12% to 6% per annum. The petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.5,67,973/- @ 6% interest in the year 2013. The direction issued in the contempt petition for interest to be paid only from the year 2011 till its actual release has not been challenged by the petitioner.
In this petition the petitioner now submits that he ought to have been paid interest for the period 31.12.2008 to 19.08.2011 also. Petitioner's right, if any, to receive interest between the period 2008 to 2011 was already in existence at the time of the filing of earlier petition and the contempt petition. Once this Court has granted relief of interest to petitioner only with effect from 19.08.2011 and the amount of interest has already paid in terms of the direction so issued in contempt matter, this Court would not be inclined to consider petitioner's claim for payment of interest between the period 2008 to 2011, now. Such claim would stand barred by the principles of constructive res- judicata. Claim in that regard therefore, stands declined.
The other relief claimed in the petition is with regard to release of a sum of Rs.67,311/- towards employees contribution to provident provident fund and an equal amount payable towards employers contribution. It is admitted that this amount has not been paid to the petitioner as deposit itself had not been made by the employer. There would be no justification for the employer not to deposit such amount or for release of such amount in favour of the petitioner. Claim of the petitioner is therefore, liable to succeed to this extent.
Writ of mandamus is accordingly issued to the respondents to deposit the employees contribution of a sum of Rs.67,311/- as also the employers contribution, with the concerned authority under the E.P.F. Act, 1952 within a period of six weeks from today along with applicable interest and such amount shall thereafter be released by respondent no.5 within a further period of two months thereafter.
In case of default, petitioner would be entitled to penal interest @ 8% per annum over and above the interest which is due under the E.P.F. Act, 1952. Such amount of penal interest would be open to be recovered from the person found responsible for not releasing the amount within the time fixed by this Court.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ashok Kr.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Ashwani Kumar Mishra
  • Anubhav Chandra