Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2008 (RAJ)

UNION OF INDIA v. BAJRANG SINGH CHOUDHARY

2017-09-07

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. The grievance in the writ petition is to the order dated 7.10.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that notwithstanding he being eligible on 27.10.2003 to be granted benefit of second stage upgraduation in the pay scale as per the ACP Scheme, the department did not constitute the Screening Committee till year 2006. On 8.11.2006, the Screening Committee recommended him to be granted benefit of second ACP upgraduation w.e.f. 27.10.2003. Yet inspite thereof the department did not place him in the next higher scale. He made representations which were un-headed and it was only on 30.6.2014 that the benefit of upgraduation was extended to him and 6,37,085 as arrears were paid. With respect to said pleadings claim was for payment of interest on account of delayed payment. 2. The second claim was for payment of the arrears of ACP with respect to the implementation of Sixth Central Pay Commission as per which the pay scales were revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 3. Now had the respondent been granted the benefit of second ACP on 27.10.2003, the benefit of replacement of pay scale would ensued to him when the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission were implemented. The second sum is 84,766/-. This payment was made to the respondent on 13.3.2015. The Tribunal has noted that the pay commission recommendations were implemented in October 2008 with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006. On this amount interest has been paid for the period October 2008 till when the payment was made on 13.3.2015. 4. The facts not being in dispute, the stand of the petitioner was that in the absence of a statute fixing rate of interest and liability to pay interest, the writ petitioner could not be directed to pay any interest. 5. Granting relief of interest at the rate applicable for delayed payment of General Provident Fund, the original application has been disposed of. Meaning thereby, for the delayed payment the appellant would have to pay interest to the respondent on the same rate which is statutory notified for late payment of G.P.F. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submissions which were made before the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 1.8.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal No. 1498/2014 Managing Committee, Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti, Udaipur & Anr. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submissions which were made before the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 1.8.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal No. 1498/2014 Managing Committee, Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti, Udaipur & Anr. v. Bhoopal Singh Babel & Ors. holds that unless there is a statute which regulates grant of interest, no direction can be issued by the Tribunal constituted under the Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 to grant interest. In the said case the Tribunal had awarded interest on late payment of leave encashment dues. 8. The decision of the Division Bench does not note the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 SC 356 State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan as per which, the right to be compensated for interest emerges from the fact of delayed payment. 9. Needless to state the principle of law is that if matter relates to money payable to the creditor, the use of money by the debtor would entitle the creditor to be re-compensated with interest. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in decision reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana & Anr. 10. The view taken by the Tribunal in the instant case conforms to law. The view is even otherwise equitable. The rate of which interest has been awarded is not excessive. The Tribunal has taken guidance from a statute where rate of interest for delayed payment is provided for. 11. In view of the fact that the department had shown negligence for over 11 years in granting benefit of second ACP to the respondent, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 7.10.2016. 12. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.