R.N. Bhargava v. State Bank Of India & ANR.

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3998/2017 R.N. BHARGAVA ..... Petitioner Through:

In person.

versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 08.05.2017 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"On the basis of the submissions made hereinabove, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to:- (a) Quash the actions of the respondent in no paying the interest on the delayed payment of Provident Fund for the period 01.08.1988 (excluding the period of one month provided for calculation etc.) to 30.05.1990 (22 months) and interest on interest from 6.8.90 to 28.2.91 (about 7 months) i.e. for period when the respondent withheld the interest amount on the delayed payment of the Provident Fund.

(b) Direct the respondent to pay the interest on the delayed payment of Provident Fund to the petitioner for the period 1.8.88 (excluding the period of one month provided for calculation etc.) to 30.5.90 (22 months) up to date and interest on interest from 6.8.90 to 28.2.91 (about 7 months) i.e. for the period when the respondent withheld the interest amount on the delayed payment of the Provident Fund;

(c) And pass such other further order / orders as the Hon‟ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." Suffice to state, the claim of the petitioner is for interest on the Provident Fund of Rs.99,380.83/- paid to the petitioner on 6th August, 1990. It is not disputed by the petitioner and noted from Page 32 of the paper book that the petitioner was paid interest for the period 31st May, 1990 to 5th August, 1990. Petitioner in person states that he is entitled to the interest for the period 1st August, 1988 to 30th May, 1990. It is noted from page 17 of the paper book that the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2003/1989 challenging his order of removal from service.

In the said writ petition, this Court had initially passed an order dated 21st July, 2008 on the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the order of the removal is withdrawn, he will not make any claim against the respondents therein. Pursuant thereto, the Division Bench of this Court on 16th September, 2008 had set aside the order of removal. I have been informed by Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent Bank that retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner thereafter. Suffice to state there was a clear observation that petitioner shall not be entitled to make any claim whatsoever against the respondents. That apart the claim in the writ petition is for the interest for the period 1st August, 1988 to 30th May, 1990. In other words, his claim relates back to 27-29 years.

I do not see any merit in the petition. Same is dismissed. V.