1 2025:CGHC:27135-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 391 of 2025 R.D. Sharma S/o Late Shri V.P. Sharma Aged About 82 Years R/o Vaishali Nagar, Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - M.P.S.R.T. Corporation, Now Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Sector) Through Its Managing Director, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Divisional Officer Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Divisional Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.06.2025 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Loniya, learned counsel for the appellant on I.A. No.01/2025 is an application for condonation of delay of 193 days in filing the instant appeal. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.25 10:48:10 +0530 2 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3431/2013 (R.D. Sharma v. State of M.P.S.R.T. and anthers), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell is that the writ petitioner is a retired employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (M.P.S.R.T. Corporation), who superannuated from service on 30/11/2000 while holding the post of Head Clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Raipur. Following his retirement, the writ petitioner did not receive his retiral dues within a reasonable time, petitioner filed W.P. No. 690/2001 before this Court seeking directions for immediate release of his retirement benefits. This Court, vide order dated 10/12/2001, directed the respondents to make the payment strictly in accordance with the Scheme presented and further ordered that in case of failure to do so within the stipulated time, the writ petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Despite the Court's clear directions, the respondents failed to comply within the prescribed period, thereby entitling the writ petitioner to interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Due to non-payment of the interest, the writ 3 petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 6338/2005, seeking payment of interest on the retiral dues from the date of retirement, i.e., 30/11/2000. While disposing of the said writ petition on 18/03/2013, this Court recorded that the respondents had paid interest amounting to Rs. 38,552/- for the period from 03/12/2002 to 07/04/2004. However, the writ petitioner contended that he was entitled to interest from the date of retirement i.e. 30/11/2000. The Court, in light of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, permitted the writ petitioner to submit a representation before the concerned authority to claim interest for the remaining period. The writ petitioner submitted the representation within the stipulated time. However, the respondent authority rejected the same in a cursory manner, stating that the Court had not specifically directed payment of interest from the date of retirement. The writ petitioner subsequently submitted another representation, drawing attention to the submissions made by the counsel for the respondents during the hearing of W.P. No. 6338/2005. Despite this, the authority again rejected the representation. After this, the writ petitioner filed WP(S) No. 3431/2013 to get interest for the remaining period, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 27/08/2024, hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law as it is not based on facts as well as laws. In accordance of order dated 10/12/2001, the learned Single 4 Judge has failed to consider the fact that the writ petitioner is legally entitled to get the payment of interest amount @18% per annum from the date of his retirement i.e. 30/11/2000. The counsel for respondent No.2 made submission before this Court in W.P.No. 6338 of 2005 that if any other amount towards interest remains to be paid the suitable to writ petitioner, he may move representation before the respondent No. 2 and if the writ petitioner is found entitled to interest for the remaining period the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Thus, the rejection of representation by respondent authorities is against the submission of their counsel submitted before this Court. Therefore, the respondent authorities be suitably directed by this Court to decide the case of writ petitioner as per submission made by them/their counsel before this court. Further, the writ petitioner moved representation complying the orders of this court in view of the statement made by the counsel for respondents before the respondent authority to claim interest for the remaining period within stipulated time period but of no avail. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition i.e. WPS No. 3431 of 2013 vide order dated 27.08.2024, observing that pursuant to order of this Court dated 18.03.2013, the representation of the writ petitioner has been rejected on the following grounds :- 5 " माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, बिलासपुर ने याचिका कमांक 690/ 2001 श्री आर 0 डी० शमा बिरूद्ध मध्यप्रदेश राज्य सड़क परिरहन बिनगम से बिदनांक 10.12.2001 को आदेश पारिरत कर सेाबिनृत लाभ ग्रेड- एक दो को रूपये 5000/- एं ग्रेड तीन एं ार को रूपये 3000/- प्रचितमाह भुगतान करने का आदेश बिदया गया, जि-सके पालन में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य सड़क परिरहन बिनगम द्वारा आपको प्रचितमाह 3000 /- ( तीन ह-ार रूपये) बिदसम्र 2002 तक बिकया गया। बिदनांक 31.12.2002 को मध्यप्रदेश राज्य सड़क परिरहन बिनगम का बिघटन हो -ाने के कारण -नरी 2003 से भुगतान करना न्द हो गया। आपको सेाबिनृत लाभ की शेष राशिश रूपये 1,60,637 /- ( एक लाख साठ ह-ार, छः सौ सैतीस रूपये) का भुगतान बिदनांक 11.05.2004 को सीआईडीसी द्वारा बिकया -ा ुका है। उक्त राशिश का भुगतान 01 ष 04 माह बिलम् होने से है। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश पालन में 18 प्रचितशत ब्या- बिदनांक 01.01.03 से अंचितम भुगतान बिदनांक 11.05.04 तक कु ल 38,552 /- ( अड़तीस ह-ार पां सौ ान) ेक कमांक 260622 बिदनांक 19.04.07 के द्वारा आपको भुगतान बिकया -ा ुका है। न्यायालय द्वारा सेाबिनृचित बिदनांक से ब्या- राशिश भुगतान का आदेश नहीं बिदयी गया है। इसलिलये उक्त अचिE का ब्या- पाने का अचिEकारी नहीं है। पू भुगतान के अचितरिरक्त और कोई राशिश भुगतान हेतु शेष नहीं है।" The learned Single Judge concluded that the reasons recorded by the respondent authorities for not granting the amount of interest to the writ petitioner for the remaining period is proper and in accordance with law and hence, dismissed the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner. 6 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet