Bombay High Court
State Bank Of India, Through Its ... vs Shri Chaityaram Koche S/O Jethu ... on 21 March, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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.
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
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
