K.G. Kochar (Retd. Gm) vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 524 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This petitioner was filed for appropriate direction to the respondents for fixation of the revised scale of pay as well as for payment of gratuity, leave encashment arrears of salary computed on the last pay drawn in the revised scale of pay with interest. It seems that during the pendency of the writ petition, arrears of the revised pay scale were paid in July/August, 2001. Petitioner, who is appearing in person has contended that he is entitled to interest as the arrears of revised pay scale was received by him after one year. In support of his contention, he has cited Vijay Malhotra v. State of U.P. & Ors. as well as State of Gujarat v. Umedbai M. Patel (2001) 3 SCC 314 and Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 (4) SCT 710 (P&H). On the basis of the aforesaid authorities, petitioner has prayed that he may be paid interest for the delayed payment on arrears of pay.

2. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has contended that as far as the pay and other emoluments of the petitioner were concerned, that were paid along with retiral benefit. The petitioner retired on 31.8.2000 and all his pay and other retiral benefits were paid to him prior to his retirement on 31.8.2000. Counsel for the respondent has contended that no interest be allowed to the petitioner on payment of arrears. It has been contended by counsel for the respondents that it was only in September, 2000 that an office memorandum was issued by the respondents revising the pay scale of the executives of the company with retrospective effect from 1.1.1997 and the time of one year which was taken, was to work out the difference of gratuity, arrears of salarly, leave enacashment for the period from 1.1.1997 to 31.8.2000. There was no undue delay in payment of the amount to the petitioenr as the petitioner was paid such dues in the month of July-August, 2001.

3. I have heard both the parties. The authorities cited by the petitioner are of no help to him. In all the aforesaid authorities interest was granted as Supreme Court found was that there was inordinate delay in paying the retiral benefits after the petitioner in those cases has retired from service. Here in the case there was no delay in payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner who was paid all his retiral benefits at the time when he retired on 31.8.2000. Arrears of difference of pay scale, leave encashment, gratuity and other retiral benefit on account of revision in the pay scale with retrospective effect was paid to the petitioner within a period of one year. It cannot be said that there was extra-ordinary delay or undue or unexplainable delay in payment of arrears of benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest on the same.

4. Writ petition stands disposed of.