Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 327 (CAL)

Ram Nandan Prasad v. State of West Bengal

2013-06-06

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
JUDGMENT In spite of direction, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondents. 2. The point involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to any interest because of the delayed payment of arrears of dues by the concerned respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed a Laboratory Attendant at Gurudas College, Kolkata, as early as in 1967. In 1982 the petitioner was not allowed to sign the attendance register for which no reasons were assigned to him. He filed a writ petition praying for a direction upon the authorities to allow him to join his duties and to pay him his salaries, both arrears and current, and other admissible allowances. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated July 31, 1995 directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties forthwith and to pay him “immediately” all his dues, if in arrear. An appeal from the said judgment and order was dismissed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he had to file an application for contempt for non-payment of the salary. The contempt application was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on August 07, 2008 wherein the learned Single Judge recorded that it took nine years for the college authorities to act and that the petitioner has prayed for an interest on the belated payment of the arrears. The learned Single Judge did not pass any order on that application for contempt but left it the petitioner with liberty to file an appropriate application claiming interest for the delayed payment. 5. The petitioner subsequently filed a second writ petition being W.P. No. 3816 (W) of 2010 alleging that no interest for the delayed payment of the salary was paid. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner before moving the Court did not make any claim for interest before the authorities. 5. The petitioner subsequently filed a second writ petition being W.P. No. 3816 (W) of 2010 alleging that no interest for the delayed payment of the salary was paid. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner before moving the Court did not make any claim for interest before the authorities. While dismissing the same the learned Single Judge had very specifically observed: “The petitioner cannot allege inaction on the part of the respondents in that though they were under an obligation to pay him interest for delay in payment of salary arrears, they did not give him interest.” The learned Single Judge gave the petitioner liberty for demanding interest by submitting the claim-application to the appropriate authority and if the claim application was submitted, the concerned official would be free to deal with the same in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner accordingly made successive representations which have not been replied to and therefore, by the present writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them to pay interest @ 15% per annum annually for the belated payment of the arrears of the dues to the petitioner. 7. At the time of hearing of the writ petition Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the State-respondents, has raised a point that there is no provision that for the belated payment of arrears of salary the petitioner is entitled to interest. According to Mr. Dutta, if it had been a case of gratuity it would have been different, but when the arrear of salary was belatedly paid, the petitioner cannot claim for interest on such payment. 8. It has already been mentioned that the respondents have not used any affidavit in connection with the writ petition. It may also be mentioned that although there is no direction for payment of interest by this Court in successive proceedings, but the entitlement of the petitioner to get an interest was otherwise accepted by the two learned Single Judges. A learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the contempt application had observed that in a proceeding under a contempt jurisdiction, the court was no inclined to pass an order of interest and gave liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application claiming interest for the delay. A learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the contempt application had observed that in a proceeding under a contempt jurisdiction, the court was no inclined to pass an order of interest and gave liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application claiming interest for the delay. Again a learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the main writ petition, indirectly accepted the obligations of the respondents to pay the interest for delayed payment of arrears of salary. The petitioner was given liberty to file an appropriate application to the appropriate authority. 9. Undoubtedly, there was enormous delay in this matter by the appropriate authorities in making the payment in terms of the order of a learned Single Judge dated July 31, 1995. The respondent authorities started making payment long after the order was passed. It had taken about a decade for the governing body to make the payment. As a result of that, I am of the view that the petitioner should not be deprived of an interest over the said amount which he would have been earned and received in appropriate time. The kind of technicality, the learned Advocate for the State suddenly introduced into the matter, does not appeal to be a very valid and convincing one. Instead of looking at it, whether the payment was of arrear of salary or gratuity or whatever, it was for the State to make the payment which they failed to do. If I look at it, from the simplistic point of view the matter is reduced to non- payment by the authorities of a sum which a petitioner is otherwise entitled to. I shall not be bothered about the nomenclature and money under which the said payment would be made. 10. It may be mentioned that the Supreme Court has, also under similar circumstances, directed the respondent to make the payment of interest. In a case of Union of India vs. Justice S. S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) & Ors., reported in (1994)2 SCC 240 , the Supreme Court had very clearly held that “Since this payment was delayed by an order or so, the original petitioner claimed interest on the balance amount @ 12% per annum, it has been rightly allowed by the Supreme Court. Once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the court.” 11. Following the principle as decided in this case, I am of the view that since the petitioner was entitled to the arrear of salaries as per the successive orders of this Court and since the petitioner has not been paid any interest, he is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him the interest amounting to rupees at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of disposal of the appeal which was filed from the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 12. Thus, the writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to make payment interest to the petitioner at the rate of 10% per annum over the belated payment and such payment shall be made from the date of the judgment and order dated May 30, 1996, i.e. the date on which the respondents appealed from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge was dismissed within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made over to the parties as early as possible upon compliance of all requisite formalities.