S. Jesuretnam (Dead) Through LRs vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Prabhakara Rao, Principal Secretary to Govt.
- SCC(2018) 15 SCC 631
- Neutral2016 INSC 394
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a State authority has failed to comply with a prior judgment of the Supreme Court and has passed an order in non-compliance thereof, the Court may set aside such non-compliant order and direct the authority to pass a fresh order in proper compliance with the earlier judgment. If benefits ordered by the Court are not distributed within the time specified, the State must pay interest at 18% per annum from the date the benefit should have been disbursed, and the responsible officer shall be personally liable for such interest.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY PRABHAKARA RAO, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 04.04.2016, this Court passed an order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below :-
"........
Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides for quite some time, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the respondent-State, which gave rise to the contempt dated 12.09.2014, is not in due compliance of the Judgment of this Court dated 07.02.2013 in SLP (C) 19016 of 2008. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent-State dated 12.09.2014 is set aside.
The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (Transport Department) is directed to pass fresh order in proper compliance of the order of this Court dated 07.02.2013 in SLP (C) 19016 of 2008 and produce a copy of the order before this Court within four weeks from today."
3. The learned counsel for the State has produced a copy of the order passed by the Government on 06.05.2016 in compliance of our order dated 04.04.2016.
4. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of, directing the respondent to distribute the benefits flowing out of the order dated 06.05.2016 along with arrears to the appellants within a period of six weeks from today.
5. We make it clear that in case the benefits are not distributed as above, the appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 18% from the date of superannuation (of the deceased appellant) and the officer(s) responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same.
No costs.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
May 09, 2016.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free