2103WP3418.13-Judgment 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3418 OF 2013
PETITIONER :- State Bank of India, a Corporation
constituted under the State Bank of India
Act, 1955, acting through its Panchpaoli
Branch, Nagpur-440 001 acting through one
of its principal officer i.e. Branch Manager.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. Chaityaram Koche S/o Jethu Koche (Dead)
Legal Representative Through Smt. Baru Bai
Koche Wd/o Late Chaityaram Koche, R/o
Plot No.119, Ramainagar P.O.Jaripatka,
Nagpur (M.H.) 440013.
2. Union of India, through it's General
Manager South Eastern Railway Garden
Reach, Calcutta.
Dismissed as per 3. Chief Manager, Centralised Pension
order dtd.29/04/2015 Processing Centre, CBD, Belapur, Navi
Mumbai.
4. Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai,
Camp at Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.M.Anilkumar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.M.M.Meshram, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Nitin Lambat, counsel for the respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 21.03.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:28:35 ::: 2103WP3418.13-Judgment 2/4 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 03/05/2013 directing the petitioner to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the respondent No.1 at the rate of 12% per annum from 23/07/1998 till the payment is actually made.
2. The respondent No.1 is a retired railway employee. Since the retiral dues were paid to the respondent No.1 belatedly, the respondent No.1 filed an original application seeking a direction against the Railways, the State Bank of India as well as the Chief Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. It was the case of the Railways in the said proceedings that the amount payable to the respondent No.1 was deposited by the Railways with the petitioner-bank and the delay was on the part of the bank in releasing the retiral dues. After finding that the retiral dues were paid to the respondent No.1 belatedly in December, 2011, the tribunal directed all the parties i.e. Railways, State Bank of India and the Chief Manager, Centralised Pension Processing Centre to pay interest to the respondent No.1 at 12% per annum from the date of his retirement till the dues are actually paid. ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:28:35 :::
2103WP3418.13-Judgment 3/4
3. Shri Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in directing the petitioner-bank to pay interest to the respondent No.1 on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. It is stated that the respondent No.1 could have filed the original application only against the government or such local or other authorities or corporation or other bodies that are controlled and owned by the government, in respect of a service matter. It is stated that the respondent No.1, not being in the services of the petitioner-bank, could not have sought a direction against the petitioner-bank to pay interest on the delayed payment of the retiral benefits. It is stated that 4% interest that was accrued on the amount was paid to the respondent No.1.
4. We uphold the objection of the petitioner that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the petitioner-bank to pay interest to the respondent No.1 on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. The respondent No.1 was the employee of the Railways and a direction to pay interest on the retiral benefits could have been sought against the Railways in terms of the relevant rules. The fact that the respondent- Railways had placed the amount that was payable to the respondent No.1 with the petitioner-bank would not entitle the respondent No.1 to ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:28:35 ::: 2103WP3418.13-Judgment 4/4 seek the relief against the petitioner-bank in the original application. If there was any fault on the part of the bank in not paying the amount to the respondent No.1, even assuming that there was any, the said inaction could have been assailed by the respondent No.1 or the Railways in some other proceedings. However, no direction could have been issued against the petitioner-bank in the original application filed by the respondent No.1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal against the Railways.
5. In this view of the matter, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order, so far as it directs the petitioner-bank to pay interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the respondent No.1. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 20:28:35 :::