T.Suryanarayana, V. The Commissioner,

WP/28874/2014

AI Insights

The case involves T. Suryanarayana, a retired employee, who filed a review petition concerning the delayed disbursement of his retirement benefits by the Endowments Department of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, the court had directed the respondents to comply with the proceedings and disburse the retirement benefits within six weeks. However, the petitioner sought a review to include interest on the delayed payments, citing precedents that support such claims. The court, referencing various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, agreed with the petitioner's request and modified the earlier judgment to include the payment of interest at 9% per annum on the delayed retirement benefits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 692064 (HC-ANDHRA_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v State of Andhra Pradesh, Chittaranjan Purokait Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors, Executive Engineer Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa & Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj (deceased) by L.Rs. & Ors., South Eastern Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P. & Ors., B.L. Gupta Construction Private Limited v. Bharat Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited, R. Kapur V. Director of Inspection Painting and Publication Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Section 151 CPC, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
• Assessee Lawyers: K K DURGA PRASAD
• Keywords: Interest on delayed payment; Retirement benefits; Review petition; Superannuation
• Section: 151; 226

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N REVIEW lA NO. 1 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 28874 OF 2014 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: T.Suryanarayana, S/o.Subba Rao, Aged about 67 years, Rtd. Employee, R/o.D.No.7-10-22, Vulli Thota Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ...REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review the orders Dt.23.02.2024 passed in WP.No.28874/2014 in terms of the decision rendered in Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari v State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2020 (5) ALD 383 (AP)(DB) (Paras 69- to 71, 84 & 88) which relies upon by the Writ Petitioners squarely covers instant Writ Petition. WRIT PETITION NO: 28874 OF 2014 Between: T.Suryanarayana, S/o.Subba Rao, Aged about 57 years, working as Manager, Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Vari Devastanam, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, R/o.D.No.7-10-22, Vulli Thota Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.\" ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. (Cause Title amended In respect of Respondent Nos 1 and 3, as per Court Order dt 04-12-2023 vide lA No 1 of 2023 in WP No 28874/2014) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order by declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings L.Dis.No.D2/ 34057/2013, dated 09-12-2013 by in not considering the case of the petitioner for transfer as Junior Assistant to Guntur District from East Godavari District and grant all the consequential benefits flows there from as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequentially direct the first respondent to grant appropriate place to the petitioner in the seniority list of Junior Assistants working in Guntur District by taking into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioner as 01-04-1978 and grant all the benefits that were granted to Junior Assistants of Guntur District in proceedings Rc.No.D2/35503/2012-2, dated 07-05-2014 like increments, seniority etc on par with them. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 36132 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to grant seniority to the petitioner in the category of Junior Assistant in Guntur District by granting all consequential benefits flows there from by taking into consideration Rule 33 of the rules issued in G.O. Ms.No. 888, Revenue (Endowments-1) department dated 08-12-2000, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER W- % THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N REVIEW IA.No.1 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION No.28874 of 2014 ORDER: The present review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 20.02.2024 whereby the respondents were directed to comply the proceedings 31.10.2014 and disburse the retirement benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the review petition is filed primarily once again canvassing that the observations of the Division Bench in granting interest for the deferred salary/wage/remuneration/honoraria on gross basis to all including all cadres of state government employees PSUs/government aided institutions/ organizations/ societies/ autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies for the month of March and April, 2020 payable in the month of May, 2020 respectively within two months from the date of receipt of the order together within interest at 12% per annum on the deferred salary. ¥ -2- 3. The division bench set aside the GOMs.No.26, dated 31.03.2020 and GOMs.No.37, dated 26.04.2020 and as such on the facts of the case therein granted the relief by directing payment of interest on the deferred salary. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have denied the retirement benefits though the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2014. It is submitted that for more than 10 years the respondents have not released the retirement benefits and as such he is entitled for interest on the retirement benefits which are due payable by the respondent for the service of the respondent. 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perusing the grounds raised in the review petition, this Court by placing reliance on Chittaranjan Purokait Vs The State of West Bengal & OrsT Whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court granted interest at 12% per for the delayed payment of salary and gratuity. The learned Division Bench of Calcutta High Court also referred to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of entitlement of interest for the delayed service benefits. In the matter of Executive Engineer Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation annum 1 2008 0 Supreme{Cal) 656 -3- Division, Orissa & Ors. v. N.C. Budharaj (deceased) by L.Rs. & Ors.,^. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed to this effect basic proposition of law is that a person deprived of the use of money to which he is legally entitled; his right to be compensated for the deprivation by whatever name it may be called viz., interest, compensation or damages and this proposition is unmistakable and valid; the efficacy and binding nature of such law cannot be either diminished or whittled down.\" The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the case South Eastern ' Coalfields Limited v. State of M.P. & Ors.,^. Even for delayed payment of royalty money under Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development Act, 67 of 57) the Court imposed liability to pay interest in the case B.L. Gupta Construction Private Limited v. Bharat Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited'*; a judgment of three Judges Bench. Long back in the case R. Kapur V. Director of Inspection Painting and Publication Income Tax® the Apex Court imposed 18% interest for delayed payment of gratuity 6. Considering the legal preposition, this Court is inclined to review the operative portion of the judgment by further directing the 2 2001 (2) see 721 ^2003 AIR sew 5258 ‘2004(1) see 110 M994 (6) see 589 -4- respondents to settle the retirement benefits together with interest calculated at 9% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of disbursement. 7. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the judgment passed by this Court is modified to the above extent only. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, sh^ll stands closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTie^ OFFICER To, 1 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur. Revenue (Endowments) Department, 3. The Principal Secretary * Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 4. One CC to Sri K K Durga Prasad Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies TF •<0*' HIGH COURT DATED:03/12/2024 ORolfe REVIEW lA NO. 1 OF 2024 IN WP.No.28874 of 2014 0 7 DEC 202*1 m X o Ciirreni ^action ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS "