High Court · 2025

Presence: - Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner. Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, Advocat e for respondent no. 1. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deput y Advocat e General w it h Mr. Dinesh Bankot i, Br ief Holder for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand / respondent no. 3. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocat e, assist ed by Mr. Vinay Bhat t , Advocat e for respondent no. 4. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) JUD GM EN T Doiwala Sugar Com pany Lt d. has challenged t he j udgm ent dat ed

25.05.2015, passed Ut t arakhand Public Services Tribunal, Dehradun Claim Pet it ion No. 42/ SB/ 2014. By t he said j udgm ent , Ut t arakhand Sahkari Chini Mills. Lt d. and Doiwala Sugar Com pany Lt d. were direct ed t o m ake paym ent of `96,904.40/ - , along wit h sim ple int erest @ 9% per annum , t o Mr. Subodh Chandra Mat hur ( respondent no. 1 herein) w.e.f. 31.03.2003 t ill act ual paym ent is m ade t o him . 1

2. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat respondent no. 1 was an em ployee of U.P. Sugar Corporat ion and he rem ained post ed wit h Doiwala Sugar Fact ory, which was a Unit of U.P. Sugar Corporat ion, only from 07.10.1998 t o 28.10.2001 t herefore, Doiwala Sugar Com pany should not have been m ade liable t o pay t he am ount in quest ion. He point s out t hat respondent no. 1 was t ransferred from Doiwala Sugar Fact ory t o anot her unit of U.P. Sugar Corporat ion at Saharanpur on 28.10.2001 and he t ook volunt ary ret irem ent while serving at Saharanpur w.e.f.

15.03.2003.

3. Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 subm it s t hat m anagem ent and cont rol over Doiwala Sugar Com pany t ransferred by U.P. Sugar Corporat ion t o Ut t arakhand Sugars w.e.f. 17.01.2002, and before it s t ransfer, a Mem orandum of Underst anding was signed bet ween aut horit ies of U.P. and Ut t arakhand St at e, according t o which, all asset s and liabilit ies of Doiwala Sugar Com pany were t ransferred t o Ut t arakhand St at e. He furt her subm it s t hat respondent no. 1 was ent it led t o upgradat ion 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 t he arrears of pay which becam e payable consequent t o crossing of efficiency bar. He subm it s t hat Doiwala Sugar Com pany was liable t o pay arrears of salary for t he period respondent no. 1 served t here. He furt her subm it s t hat paym ent of arrears of salary was m ade t o respondent no. 1 only in 2 t he year 2016 aft er j udgm ent of learned Tribunal. Thus, he subm it s t hat t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal cannot be fault ed.

4. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel respondent no. 1. Since, respondent no. 1 was denied arrears of salary, which had accrued on account of his crossing t he efficiency bar and t here was delay of fourt een years in paying such arrears t o him , t herefore, learned Tribunal was j ust ified in direct ing for paym ent of int erest for delayed paym ent .

5. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. No order as t o cost s. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

24.04.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006 da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564 3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3