Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Order on Delayed Payment of Leave Encashment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the delayed payment of privilege leave encashment to retired employees. The case, arising from Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., involved a dispute over the payment of interest on the amounts due to retired employees for privilege leave encashment.

The High Court had invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioners, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., delayed releasing the amounts payable to retired employees. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had directed the petitioners to pay interest on the outstanding amounts at the rate of 8.65 percent.

The petitioners then challenged this order by filing a Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, in response, directed the petitioners to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the payment and file an affidavit. However, the Division Bench found the affidavit to be vague and not in compliance with their earlier order.

The impugned order dismissing the Special Appeal was based on the petitioners' inability to satisfactorily explain the delay and the lack of justification for the delay in filing the Special Appeal.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, observed, "The Division Bench was right in finding the affidavit unsatisfactory," and further noted, "The impugned order has been complied with." Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the special leave petitions but clarified that this decision should not be construed as affirming the view of the learned Single Judge.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely payment and adherence to court orders. It serves as a reminder of the legal obligations that organizations have towards their retired employees and the consequences of not meeting these obligations.

Date of Decision: 26-09-2023                     

INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs RAMA KANT SRIVASTAVA & ORS.       

               

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/India_Telephone_Industries_Ltd_vs_Rama_Kant_Srivastava_on_26_September_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:19 AM
SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 9:18 AM
Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:06 AM
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    11 June 2026 8:05 AM
138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court