Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 35 (HP)

Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal

2016-01-05

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench on 22.10.2008, whereby it allowed the original application filed by the respondent and directed the implementation of the order dated 8.1.2007 regarding payment of leave encashment to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 93,460/- with interest. 2. The respondent was appointed as Khalasi on 6.10.1969 and joined Grand Hotel, Shimla.He was superannuated on 31.12.2006 and with effect from 1973, he was given the benefit of full grade Wireman. Upon retirement, he was paid all his retiral benefits, except the leave encashment for which he was constrained to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. Petitioners filed their reply and the only explanation offered therein was that the case of the respondent for his leave encashment was being pursued with the Pay & Accounts Office (NZ), New Delhi for rectification of leave account. 4. The learned Tribunal, after placing reliance upon the order passed by the petitioners themselves on 8.1.2007, wherein the leave encashment due towards the respondent had been worked out at Rs. 93,460/, directed its payment along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of his retirement to the date of actual payment. 5. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the respondent should not have been held entitled to interest on the amount due as this would result in huge financial liability upon the petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. It is vehemently argued by Sh.Pawan Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the impugned order is allowed to stand, then the petitioners would unnecessarily be burdened with a huge liability towards interest on the amount due i.e. Rs. 93,460/. 7. We find no force in this submission for the reason that admittedly the learned Tribunal pronounced its judgment on 22.10.2008 whereby it directed the payment of 8% interest from the date of retirement of the respondent till the date of actual payment. The respondent admittedly retired on 31.12.2006 and even if the interest is calculated on the amount due even beyond the date of the judgment uptil 31.12.2008, the same would still hardly work out to be Rs. The respondent admittedly retired on 31.12.2006 and even if the interest is calculated on the amount due even beyond the date of the judgment uptil 31.12.2008, the same would still hardly work out to be Rs. 14,954/-, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be ‘huge liability’. Apart from the above, it would also be noticed that it were the petitioners themselves who vide order dated 8.1.2007 had worked out the amount due towards respondent, but had failed to release the same without there being any valid explanation. 8. It is thereafter contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant interest. This contention too is equally without any force as it is more than settled that even in absence of there being any statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines prescribed for the purpose of claiming benefit of interest on delayed payment, even then an employee can claim interest under Part-III of the Constitution relying upon Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. After all, the grant of pensionary benefits is not a bounty, but is a valuable right and is property in the hands of the employee and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be dealt with penalty of payment of interest at current market rate till actual payment to the employee. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala & ors Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 . 9. It is not necessary to refer multiple decisions on this subject and it shall suffice to refer to a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L.Rs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & ors, AIR 2014 SC 2861 , wherein, after relying upon the judgment in Padmanabhan Nair’s (supra), it was held: “4. Unfortunately such claim for interest that was allowed in respondent's favour by the District Court and confirmed by the High Court was at the rate of 6 per cent per annum though interest at 12 per cent had been claimed by the respondent in his suit. Unfortunately such claim for interest that was allowed in respondent's favour by the District Court and confirmed by the High Court was at the rate of 6 per cent per annum though interest at 12 per cent had been claimed by the respondent in his suit. However, since the respondent acquiesced in his claim being decreed at 6 per cent by not preferring any cross objections in the High Court it could not be proper for us to enhance the rate to 12 per cent per annum which we were otherwise inclined to grant. 5. We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the L.P.C. but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public.” 10. Having said so, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear the costs.