JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. These appeals, arising out of one and the same accident dated 15.08.2009, preferred against order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla, Exercising the powers of Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) are being decided by this common judgment as identical substantial questions of law involved therein are to be decided on the basis of common principles of law, evidence and provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Petitioners in both the appeals are employees of H.P. State Electricity Board (HPSEB) and at the time of accident were serving in the office of Senior Executive Engineer, Transmission Division, HPSEB, Totu, Shimla. 3. Occurrence of accident on 15.08.2009, at about 3.45 p.m. causing injuries to the appellants is not disputed and qua the injuries caused in the said accident, compensation awarded by the Commissioner, has also been paid by respondent-Board to the petitioners by depositing the same with the Commissioner on 13.03.2012. 4. In Shiv Dutt Sharma's case (bearing No. 12/2 of 2011/2009, titled as Shiv Dutt Sharma vs. The Senior Executive Engineer, Trans. Division, H.P.S.E.D. Totu, Shimla) compensation was awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,46,405/- whereas, in the case of Tek Chand (bearing No. 9/2 of 2011/2009, titled as Tek Chand vs. The Senior Executive Engineer, Trans. Division, H.P.S.E.D. Totu, Shimla), a sum of Rs. 1,47,079/- was awarded. Respondent-Board has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,47,079/- and Rs. 1,76,927/- respectively in both the cases with the Commissioner on 13.03.2012. 5. Present appeals have been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the Commissioner has committed a mistake of law by not awarding the interest in favour of petitioner under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act? 2. Whether the Commissioner has committed a mistake by not imposing penalty upon the respondent under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act? 6. Section 4A of the Act reads as under:- “4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. 2. Whether the Commissioner has committed a mistake by not imposing penalty upon the respondent under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act? 6. Section 4A of the Act reads as under:- “4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default:- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the [employee] as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the [employee] to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall:- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due. (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.” 7. The Commissioner has awarded compensation in both the petitions to the petitioners, but without any interest and interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded only on failure to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days after passing of the order. 8. Order of the Commissioner was announced on 23.01.2012 and 30 days thereafter had expired on 22.02.2012. Whereas, amount of compensation has been deposited by the respondent-Board on 13.03.2012. 9. 8. Order of the Commissioner was announced on 23.01.2012 and 30 days thereafter had expired on 22.02.2012. Whereas, amount of compensation has been deposited by the respondent-Board on 13.03.2012. 9. Undoubtedly, appellants were entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner as provided under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act, but the Commissioner had committed a mistake by not awarding the said interest. However, in view of delay in depositing compensation amount, even if, order of Commissioner is not modified, respondent-Board is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the compensation amount, in terms of order passed by the Commissioner and the said order has not been assailed by the respondent-Board, rather has been accepted by it by depositing the principal amount of compensation alongwith interest of few days. In any case, in view of provisions of the Act and also order passed by the Commissioner, appellants are entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date when it fell due i.e. 30 days after the date of accident till the date of deposit of the principal amount with the Commissioner. First substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 10. The Commissioner has not imposed any penalty for delay in payment of compensation. It has come on record, as noticed in para-21 of the impugned order, that it was an admitted fact that expenses incurred by the appellants in their treatment were reimbursed by the respondent-Board and therefore, on that count no compensation has been awarded to them. Further, it has also come on record that according to the respondent-Board, appellants were not falling in the category of workmen on account of their status of the posts against which they were working and therefore, no compensation was deposited, by applying the relevant provisions of the Act. In my opinion, there was a plausible and justifiable reason for not paying compensation under the Act, as the respondent-Board, on account of status of posts of the appellants, was considering that they were not falling in the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act. In my opinion, there was a plausible and justifiable reason for not paying compensation under the Act, as the respondent-Board, on account of status of posts of the appellants, was considering that they were not falling in the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act. Therefore, as there is justification for delay in payment of compensation coupled with the fact that immediately after passing of the order by the Commissioner, respondent-Board has deposited the compensation amount with the Commissioner, I find no reason to impose penalty upon the respondent-Board for nonpayment of the compensation amount under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act. Second substantial question of law is answered in the aforesaid terms. 11. In view above discussion, appeals are partly allowed in aforesaid terms and respondent-Board is directed to deposit the interest amount within 60 days, after receipt of certified copy of the order or on production thereof by the appellants. 12. Petitions stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, alongwith pending applications, if any.