Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA versus SHRI UJAGAR LAL
- Decided
- 7 October 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 227 · 1996 INSC 1154
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Though notice was sent to the respondent on May 8, 1992, till date neither the acknowledgment card nor unserved notice has been received back. Under those circumstances, notice must be deemed to have served.
p. 227, margin E
Leave granted.
p. 227, margin F
The only question argued in this appeal is: whether the respondent is entitled to the payment of interest for failure to released the death-cumretirement gratuity under the rules? The Tribunal in the impugned order made on 22.11.1990 in O.A. No. 1383/90 directed interest@ 7% per annum for the first twelve months and @10% per annum for the period thereafter. The admitted position is that the respondent was unauthorisedly in occupation of the quarter allotted to him and, therefore, he was not paid deathcum-retirement gratuity since the respondent had remained in possession unauthorisedly for more than two years. This question was considered by this Court in Raj Pal Wahi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) Nos. 7688-91/88 decided on 27.11.1989 and held that in those circ~·mstances, the Court unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get interest for the delayed payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity as the delay in payment occurred due to the order passed on the basis of the said circular of Railway Board and not on account of administrative lapse. In this case, in view of the circular issued by the administration directing not to make payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity till the retired employee surrenders possession, the delay in payment was not due to any administrative lapse but on account of the circular issued by the Board. Under these circumstances, the respondent is not entitled to the interest as directed by the Tribunal.
pp. 227–228, margin G
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed. ,,
p. 228, margin C