S.K DUA versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 09-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A the rate of 18% for the delayed payment, but the 
-;..... 
representations were rejected. He file writ petition claiming 
the same, but it was dismissed by High Court summarily. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
B 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter 
to High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the circumstances of the case, the 
}-
grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-
• 
founded that he would be entitled to interest on such 
~ 
...... 
c benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, 
the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on 
such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, 
Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the 
appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But 
D even in absence of Statutory Rules, Administrative 
Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest 
under Part Ill of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 
and 21 of the Constitution. Retiral benefits are not in the 
) 
nature of 'bounty'. In that view of the matter, the High 
E Court was not right in dismissing the petition in /imine 
even without issuing notice to the respondents. The writ 
petition OUs;Jht to have been admitted by, issuing Rule nisi 
and ought to have been decided on merits. [Paras 11 and 
12] [ 401-E, F, G; 402-A, B] 
F 
2. The High Court had not entertained the petition 
and it was summarily dismissed. The High Court thus was 
•· .. 
.. 
not having the affidavit on behalf of the respondent 
t-
Authorities. In the affidavit filed by the State-Authorities 
in this Court, the stand taken by Government is that 
G 'vigilance enquiries' are 'still pending' against the 
appellant. The said affidavit is of January, 2005. In the 
affidavit in rejoinder, the writ-petitioner has stated that "the 
alleged pendency of the 'vigilance enquiry' if any is 
insignificant". The Court is also not aware as to what has 
H happened thereafter though considerable period has 
S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
397 
[THAKKER, J.] 
elapsed. In view of all these facts, it would be in the interest A 
of both the parties that the matter is remitted to the High 
Court, rather than deciding the same by this Court. In view 
of the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen and the 
prayer relates to interest on retiral dues paid to him after 
four years, High Court is requested to give priority to the B 
~ 
case and decide it finally expeditiously. [Para 14] [402-E, 
F, G, H; 403-A] 
... 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 184 
of 2008. 
c 
From the Judgment I Order dated 7.7.2005 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 
10025/2005. 
M.N. Krishnamani, S. Pani and Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary 
for the Appellant. 
D 
_.( 
Manjit Singh, A.A.G. (Haryana), T.V. George for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 
E 
2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on July 7, 2005 
in Writ Petition (C) No. 10025 of 2005. By the impugned order, 
... 
the High Court dismissed the petition in /imine relegating the 
F 
+ 
appellant - writ petitioner to avail a remedy by approaching a 
Civil Court. 
3. Facts in brief are that the appellant was working as an 
Engineer-in-Chief in the Department of Irrigation, Haryana. 
According to him, he joined the service in Irrigation Department G 
of the erstwhile State of Punjab in August, 1961 and was 
allocated to the Department of Irrigation and Power in the State 
of Haryana. He was promoted as Engineer-in-Chief on May 31, 
1996 and worked in that capacity till he attained the age of 
superannuation in June, 1998. The appellant had an 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200811 S.C.R. 
A unblemished record of service for 37 years. During the course 
of his duties as Head of the Department, he submitted reports 
in or about April-May, 1998 to the· Government highlighting 
certain irregularities and mal-practices sai.d to have been 
committed by Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, the then Secretary, Irrigation & 
B Power and requested the Government to make enquiry through 
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). According to the appellant, 
in pursuance of the complaint made by him, the Government 
t-
removed Mr. Quraishi as Secretary, Irrigation allowing him to 
~ 
work only as Secretary, Department of Power. 
C 
4. The appellant has alleged that, as a measure of 
ve

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.