Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 69079 of 2005 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K. Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J.
Heard Shri A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the authorities to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 18% on account of delayed payment of deducted amount when such deduction was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 50877 of 2002 by a judgment dated 24.9.2003.
The claim of the petitioner is that he was a L.T. Grade Science Teacher in Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Doughat, District Meerut (now District Baghpat).
It is submitted that government in order to encourage the teachers to take Science subject had allowed six increments in the year 1964 by a Government Order dated 19.3.1964. The petitioner was also granted six increments, but upon his retirement on 30.6.2001 the six increments granted to the petitioner was deducted while determining the pension of the petitioner. The petitioner then filed the aforesaid writ petition and this Court quashed the order of deduction and directed payment within one month.
The grievance of the petitioner is that deduction was made on 11.10.2001 and pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the said deduction was held to be illegal and was finally paid to the petitioner on 5.12.2003, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment.
It is to be noted that prior to filing of the writ petition six increments, earlier granted to the petitioner, had already been deducted by order dated 11.10.2001. After such deduction was made, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging such deduction, but in that writ petition the petitioner did not make any prayer for payment of interest nor did the Court direct payment of interest. The deduction of amount from the pension of the petitioner was held to be illegal and was directed to be paid to the petitioner within one month. The petitioner did not take any steps for impressing upon the authorities to comply the order of the Court nor did the petitioner file any contempt petition. When the amount was finally paid in 2003 the petitioner accepted the same without any objection and now by means of this writ petition the petitioner is claiming interest on the said amount.
It is basic principle of law that a prayer that could have been made in the writ petition but was not made, by a subsequent writ petition such a prayer cannot be allowed. If the petitioner was interest in interest, he could have prayed for payment of interest in the earlier writ petition itself which the petitioner did not do. As such, now no such direction can be given for payment of interest for which the petitioner himself is responsible for the delay.
The writ petition has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 Sunil Kr. Gupta