JUDGMENT Loknath Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed that he is entitled for interest in view of the provision of section 24A of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and as such the order of the respondent no.2 dated 30th Nov. 1988 through which the interest was not allowed, is apparently illegal and liable to be set aside. 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this application is that in view of the provision of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 and the prior provisions of Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 the coal mines belonging to the private owner were taken over by the Govt. and a provision was made in the Act itself for compensation to erst-while owner of the coalmine and similarly also provision was made in the Act itself that the creditor who had some claim over the mine when it was being run by the private owner has a right to make claim before the Commissioner of Payments and such claimant's claim if found to be genuine is to be allowed from the compensation amount of the colliery owner. Accordingly the petitioner who was doing some contractual work under the private owner at Saundadih 399 and 322 colliery belonging to Karanpura Colliery Ltd., that is, respondent no.3 had a claim over the ex-owner of the colliery and a claim case was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner of Payments, Ranchi bearing case no. 322/141 of 1975. 3. Due to intervention of the wellwisher, there was a compromise in that very claim case and in terms of the compromise between the claimant-petitioner and the colliery owner, the claim case was accordingly disposed of and the amount which the claimant claimed was also paid to a larger extent by various instalments. However, in view of the provision of Section 24A of the said Act, though the claimant is entitled for interest on the admitted claim, but the interest was not allowed and then the petitioner had preferred a writ application bearing no. C.W.J.C. 1788/88R which was disposed of vide order dt. However, in view of the provision of Section 24A of the said Act, though the claimant is entitled for interest on the admitted claim, but the interest was not allowed and then the petitioner had preferred a writ application bearing no. C.W.J.C. 1788/88R which was disposed of vide order dt. 7th October, 1988 and a direction was made to respondent no.2, that is, Commissioner of Payments, Calcutta, to dispose of the claim of the petitioner regarding interest as envisaged u/s. 24A of the said Act considering the decision and the principle laid down in a case reported in 1988 BLT 176 (Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India and others). 4. In pursuance of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid writ application, the Commissioner of Payment which is the competent authority disposed of the claim of the petitioner regarding interest vide order dt. 30th November, 1988 that is, Annexure 4 to this writ application, thereby and thereunder the respondent no.2 recorded a finding that so far provision of Section 24A of the Act is concerned, it is not applicable in the case of the claim of the petitioner, because the provision of Section 24A is mainly for the benefit of erst-while owner of the colliery and in order to safeguard excessive payment of interest, that too, by virtue of any instrument, decree of award to the Court, a restriction was imposed that the interest payable to the claimant, an outer limit was fixed only to the extent the interest to be accrued in the deposit made in favour of the owner of colliery in a Bank, that is, to be calculated, comes to 4% per annum. So the balance amount of the interest to be accrued in respect of the deposit, that is on the amount of compensation will go to the erstwhile owner of the colliery in view of the provisions of section 18(5) of the said Act. So the balance amount of the interest to be accrued in respect of the deposit, that is on the amount of compensation will go to the erstwhile owner of the colliery in view of the provisions of section 18(5) of the said Act. Against this very order, this writ application has been preferred mainly on the ground that respondent no.2 completely ignored the provision of Section 24A of the Act and interpreted the whole provision of Section 24A in favour of the erstwhile owner, though, in fact, there is no categorisation that where a particular set of claimants will be entitled for such interest and the order of respondent no.2 also completely ignored the direction given by the division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. 1788/88R. 5. Respondent no.3 Karanpura Colliery Ltd. is admittedly the owner of Saunda-D colliary and Religora colliery for which claim was made by the petitioner, filed counter affidavit and contested this writ application mainly on the ground that so far the claim of the petitioner is concerned, the claim was duly compromised and in view of the compromise the claim was admitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Payment, Ranchi. So whatever was the claim, by mutual agreement it was reduced to certain amount which is the amount shown in the compromise and certainly the parties had no intention to claim interest on the compromised amount. In that view of the matter, the right of the claimant, if any, even assuming to be true under Section 24A of the Act, then by conduct and waiver had extinguished and now the petitioner is not expected to challenge the compromise and claim interest. In the alternative, this, respondent has also made out a case that Section 24A had been introduced in the Act, subsequently to safeguard the interest of the erstwhile owner and this provision was mainly to protect the erstwhile owner from payment of excessive interest by virtue of any instrument, decree or award and now the payment of interest only in such category of cases is restricted to a outer limit to the extent of 4% per annum as the deposit made in favour the erstwhile owner will earn by way of interest from the bank. The petitioner does not come within the category for which the provision of payment of interest had been made under Section 24A. The petitioner does not come within the category for which the provision of payment of interest had been made under Section 24A. So either in fact or in law both the claim of the petitioner is not tenable. 6. Thus in view of the controversy raised on behalf of both the parties, the only question for consideration is if the petitioner-claimant is entitled for interest on the amount of claim admitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Payment in view of provision of Section 24A of the said Act. 7. Admittedly the petitioner made a claim in respect of some dues as against erstwhile colliery owner in respect of Saunda-D colliery and admittedly respondent no.2 Karanpura Colliery Ltd. is the owner of the colliery. There is provision that, if such claim is preferred as against the erstwhile owner of the colliery, then a machinery has been provided under the said Act to be decided by Asstt. Commissioner of Payment. The claim case bearing no. 322/141 of 1985 preferred by the claimant was disposed of by terms of compromise between the claimant and of the erstwhile owner of the colliery and, thus, in view of the compromise, the claim of the petitioner was admitted to the extent of the amount admitted by the parties. 8. Now one of the points raised on behalf of the contesting respondent is that no doubt there is a provision under Section 24A of the Act for payment of interest on the claim to be admitted before the Commissioner of Payment, but in the instant case, in view of the compromise, parties have agreed that the entire claim is to be settled in that way and the amount mentioned in the compromise is only to be paid. If at all there was intention on the part of the parties that in such a situation even the claimant is entitled for interest, then the parties should have mentioned this fact in the compromise petition itself. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very fact that there is no reference about the non-payment of interest in the compromise, clearly indicates that the claimant is not debarred or claimant surendered his right to claim interest, more particularly, for the reason that the right to claim interest is a statutory right of the claimant conferred under Section 24A of the Act. So even the parties are not entitled to enter into a compromise against the Statute. No doubt, the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner apparently appears to be very reasonable and the parties are not expected to make any compromise, that too, against the provision of any law. But here only there is a provision for grant of interest. If that is so, the right of the claimant is only regarding pecuniary interest and not any other civil right. In that view of the matter by effecting the compromise, the parties can safely forego such pecuniary gain and in that view of the matter, it cannot be said that it is specifically against the provision of the Statute. However, the compromise petition is not before us and the only test is to be laid down for entertaining such claim is the recital made in the compromise petition. If in the compromise the parties had not specifically made a reference that the claimant will not be entitled for Interest, then certainly in that case, the petitioner will be entitled for the interest because of the provision of section 24A of the Act. So this fact is to be considered by respondent no.2 itself by going through the compromise petition which will be on the record and if there will be no specific reference that the claimant will not be entitled for interest, then certainly claimant can claim interest, even though there is a compromise between the parties, in view of the provision of Section 24A of the Act. 9. Now so far the order of respondent no.2 that the claimant is not entitled for any interest in view of the fact that such provision has been made for a particular class of the claim, and that means, the claimants who are basing their claim on the basis of some specific instrument, award or decree, in which there is a provision for higher interest and that should be limited to the extent of the interest provided under Section 24A of the Act, appears to be not sustainable in view of specific provision in Section 24A of the Act. Section 24A of the Act clearly indicates that : Notwithstanding any award, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, passed before the appointed day, in relation to any coal mine, where any amount is payable in respect of a claim admitted under this Act, the interest payable on such amount for any period after appointed day shall be at such rate not exceeding the rate of interest accruing on any amount deposited by the Commissioner under Section 18 : meaning thereby that every claimant, for which a claim is to be accepted by the Commissioner, such claimant will be entitled for the interest and only restriction was imposed that if there is any higher rate of interest in any award, decree or instrument, then the amount of interest payable under this Act, will be limited to the extent as provided. Thus, it can be said that other class of claimants who had not obtained any award or decree, are not entitled for the interest as held by the respondent no.2. 10. Moreover the findings of the respondent no.2 that actually this provision has been introduced only for the benefit of the erst-while colliery owner, appears to be completely wrong approach because the colliery owner will be entitled for only the residuary compensation amount together with the interest which will remain on the residuary amount. If virtually the claim of any creditor is admitted as against the erstwhile colliery owner under the Act, then it will be deemed in the eye of law that the amount already admitted in favour of the claimant actually will go to the claimant on the day it has already been admitted. If that is so, if the interest to be accrued to that portion of the amount which the claimant is entitled and his case is also found to be genuine by the Commissioner of Payment, then the claimant will get that interest on a simple logic that this portion of the amount, though originally deposited in favour of the colliery owner, actually had gone to the claimant. So payment of interest, that too, accrued on the amount deposited in the Bank will certainly go to the claimant or the creditor if the amount is admitted and the colliery owner is not put to any additional loss on this score. 11. So payment of interest, that too, accrued on the amount deposited in the Bank will certainly go to the claimant or the creditor if the amount is admitted and the colliery owner is not put to any additional loss on this score. 11. So in view of the provision of Section 24A as discussed above and the principle as laid down in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra), I am of the opinion that respondent no.2 decided the claim of interest of the petitioner apparently without applying his mind and without considering the provision of Section 24A and thought there was specific direction in C.W.J.C. 1788/88R to dispose of the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provision of Section 24A and also in view of the principles laid down in Punjab National Bank case (supra), the respondent no.2 completely ignored the direction of the court and, thus, his order dt. 30.11.88 as contained in Annexure 4 is hereby set aside. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the claim of the petitioner regarding interest on the admitted amount of claim is again remanded to the respondent no.2, that is, Commissioner of Payment, Calcutta, with this observation that he will reconsider the claim of the petitioner regarding payment of interest as provided u/s. 24A of the Act keeping in view the observation made above and also the Commissioner of Payment will also examine the compromise petition filed by the parties only for the purpose that if in the compromise petition there is a specific averment that the entire claim will be limited to the extent of the amount admitted and the parties will not claim any further amount or any interest, then in such situation, the claim of interest will not be admissible to the petitioner in that contingency. The Commissioner of Payment is expected to dispose of the claim of interest after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible.