Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. vs Subodh Chandra Mathur & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. has challenged the judgment dated 25.05.2015, passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun in Claim Petition No. 42/ SB/ 2014. By the said judgment, Uttarakhand Sahkari Chini Mills. Ltd. and Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd. were directed to make payment of Rs. 96,904.40/ -, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum, to Mr. Subodh Chandra Mathur (respondent no. 1 herein) w.e.f. 31.03.2003 till actual payment is made to him .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 1 was an employee of U.P. Sugar Corporation and he remained posted with Doiwala Sugar Factory, which was a Unit of U.P. Sugar Corporation, only from 07.10.1998 to 28.10.2001 therefore, Doiwala Sugar Company should not have been made liable to pay the amount in question. He points out that respondent no. 1 was transferred from Doiwala Sugar Factory to another unit of U.P. Sugar Corporation at Saharanpur on 28.10.2001 and he took voluntary retirement while serving at Saharanpur w.e.f. 15.03.2003.

Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that management and control over Doiwala Sugar Company was transferred by U.P. Sugar Corporation to Uttarakhand Sugars w.e.f. 17.01.2002, and before its transfer, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between authorities of U.P. and Uttarakhand State, according to which, all assets and liabilities of Doiwala Sugar Company were transferred to Uttarakhand State. He further submits that respondent no. 1 was entitled to upgradation in his pay scale, on account of his crossing efficiency bar w.e.f, 01.01.1993, order wherefor was passed on 14.01.2003, however, respondent no. 1 was not paid the arrears of pay which became payable consequent to crossing of efficiency bar. He submits that Doiwala Sugar Company was liable to pay arrears of salary for the period respondent no. 1 served there. He further submits that payment of arrears of salary was made to respondent no. 1 only in the year 2016 after judgment of learned Tribunal. Thus, he submits that the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.

We find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Since, respondent no. 1 was denied arrears of salary, which had accrued on account of his crossing the efficiency bar and there was delay of fourteen years in paying such arrears to him, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in directing for payment of interest for delayed payment.

Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.