9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Present: Ms. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Bal Ram Bali-respondent, in person. ***** A.N. Jindal, J. Bal Ram Bali, plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') had filed a suit for declaration claiming interest at the rate of 12% on accumulated amount of arrears of Rs.95,051/- paid for the period from August 1987 to March 2006 up to 22.06.2006 i.e. the date of payment of the said arrears. He also prayed that the said interest may be treated as notional principal for onward payment of interest up to the date of payment of interest. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 16.09.2009, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs, against which, an appeal was preferred by him. However, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with retrospective effect from 14.12.2001 vide separate orders. The arrears of pay to the tune of Rs.95,051/- were paid to him on 22.06.2006. The plaintiff has claimed that as he was reinstated in the service, therefore, he was entitled to receive interest on the delayed payment. On notice, the defendant besides raising some preliminary objections, submitted that the arrears were paid to the plaintiff within reasonable time from the date of sanctioning of payment with retrospective effect, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any interest thereon. Regular Second Appeal No. 176 of 2012 (O M) From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights granted to an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff being an employee of the defendant, was entitled to be considered for promotion within due time. As such, his salary having been not granted within time, he was certainly entitled to interest. The matter relating to interest, came up for discussion before this Court from time to time. In a judgment passed by this Court in case Lt. Colonel (Now Major) Surjit Singh Vs. General Officer Commanding 33, Mechanised Division, C/o 56 A.P.O. and others, 1988 (3) SLR 439, it was observed that since the arrears of salary were not given to the employee within time, therefore, he was entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Similarly in case Surinder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
