Mahendra Gupta & Ors. v. DVB Employees Terminal Benefit Fund - 2002 & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 27 Mar 2015 · 2015:DHC:11002
Valmiki J. Mehta
W.P.(C) 3215/2015
2015:DHC:11002
labor petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

Delhi High Court directs payment of terminal benefits with interest to petitioners, relying on prior precedents and dismissing delay tactics by respondent fund.

Full Text
Translation output
$-23 & 27 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3215/2015
MR. MAHENDRA GUPTA & ORS. Petitioners
Through Mr.Manish Sharma with Ms.Arpita Rai, Advocates.
VERSUS
DVB EMPLOYEES TERMINAL BENEFIT FUND - 2002 & ORS.
Respondents
Through Ms.SupriyaJuneja, Advocate for R-3.
W.P.(C) 3230/2015
MR. KULDEEP KUMAR JAIN & ORS. Petitioners
Through Mr.Manish Sharma with Ms.Arpita Rai, Advocates.
VERSUS
DVB EMPLOYEES TERMINAL BENEFIT FUND - 2002 & ORS.
Respondents
Through Ms.Supriya Juneja, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKIJ. MEHTA
27.03.2015 C.M.No.5750/2015
ORDER

1. Exemption allowed, subject tojust exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C^ No.3215/2015 & C.M.No.5749/2015

3. Notice. 2015:DHC:11002 y

4. Counsel for respondent no.3 accepts notice. In spite of advance notice, counsels do notappear for respondent no. 1& 2.

5. Counsel for respondent no.3 concedes that the issue in the present petition and the reliefs claimed are covered in favour ofthe petitioners by the judgment delivered by this Court in the case ofRosy Jain Vs. GNCT ofDelhi & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.4532/2010 decided on 09.7.2013, and i;" another order passed by alearned Single Judge ofthis Court allowing the petition in the case ofRattan Singh Vs. The Govt. ofNCT ofDelhi & Anr. inW.P.(C) No.4971/2013 decided on23.4.2014.

6. I may note that in terms ofthe judgment/order in the case ofRosy Jain (supra) and Rattan Singh (supra, costs of Rs.50,000/- were imposed on each occasion against the respondent no.3 for unnecessarily contesting the petitions.

7. Counsel for the respondent no.3, however only contends that the respondent no.3 has filed an LPA, and acopy ofthe interim order in that LPA has been filed by the petitioners themselves at pages 257 to 260 of the paper book, and therefore the respondent no.3 also intends to file a similar LPA inthis case and seeks appropriate interim order therein. To this contention, all that is required to be observed is that alegal right of appeal always exists with the respondent no.3 in accordance with law.

8. Inview ofthe above, since issues and reliefs are fiilly covered by the judgment passed in the case of Rosy Jain (supra), and therefore adopting the ratio in the case of Rosy Jain (supra)ihQ writ petition is allowed and, it is ordered that the petitioners will be paid their terminal benefits including pension by the respondent no.3 within a period of three months from today. Petitioners will also be entitled to the interest @9% per annum simple from the date of the retirement of each of the r petitioner and till the payments are made by the respondent no.3. Ifthe amount due is not paid within aperiod ofthree months from today by the respondent no.3, interest thereafter will be paid to the petitioners by the respondent no.3 @12% per annum simple.

9. Writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. W.P.rn 3230/2015 & C.M.Nos.5777-5778/2015 This writ petition is also allowed in terms of the reliefs granted while allowing theW.P.(C) No.3215/2015. VALMIKIJ. MEHTA, J MARCH 27, 2015 KA