AGARTALA, India, May 27 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on April 27:
1. We have heard the petitioner in person and Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior G.A. appearing for the respondent No.4.
[2] The present review petition carries a history of several litigations behind it. The basic grievance of the present petitioner as ventilated through such litigations was in respect of his claims for in-service and post-service benefits as a Professor under the respondent No.3, Tripura University. He went on retirement on 31.03.2007.
[3] Once the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.577 of 2019 in this Court with such grievances and the learned Bench disposed of the matter on 08.05.2019 giving a liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation to the University authority, in addition to the representations already submitted by him and the University was also directed simultaneously to examine the case of the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously and not later than 2[two] months; and thereafter, the order assigning the reasons had to be communicated to the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner ultimately did not satisfy the petitioner.
[4] He thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.1361 of 2019 and the learned Writ Court disposed of the same on 20.10.2020 with observations that the petitioner might be agitating his various claims of higher retirement age or higher pension under CCS (Pension) Rules; whether the claims were justified or not, were not important, but the University, on its own ought to have paid his legitimate dues, which according to the University, he is entitled to. It was further held that merely because the petitioner was clamouring for higher benefits, it would not be proper for the University to withhold his such post-retiral benefits which even according to the University were payable to him. Pendency of the litigation initiated by the petitioner, therefore, could not be a ground on which the University could have used to withheld such dues. Therefore, the University, was liable to pay interest for such delayed payment. Finally, the Court directed the respondents to pay simple interest @ 7% per annum on the sum of Rs.51,62,074/- computing from 01.07.2007 till payment (01.10.2019) within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of passing of the said judgment.
[5] The University authority then filed W.A. No.449 of 2020 against the said judgment and the appeal was thereafter dismissed. However, the Division Bench granted 4[four] weeks time to make the payment of interest as per the direction of the learned Single Judge with further caution that if the interest was not paid within the period, the University should be called upon to pay further interest up to the date of actual payment at the rate stipulated by the learned Single Judge.
[6] The University authority again thereafter, preferred a petition seeking review of the said judgment bearing Review Petition No.07 of 2012 and the said petition for review was also accordingly disposed of by the order dated 18.04.2022 by the Division Bench observing that the interest as directed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench on the amount payable/paid to the private respondent should be computed from the date on which it became due and payable to the private respondent (petitioner) till the date of actual payment with further direction to the University authority to release the same within a period of 2[two] weeks.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x0UeQVZUE1swJKrDj54mIa4INPjIayfIuKG%2B5%2FFrEVtj&caseno=Review%20Pet./26/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010015172025&state_code=20&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
