Delhi High Court
Delhi Police vs Balwant Singh on 13 March, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on 13.03.2012
+ W.P.(C) 1227/2012
DELHI POLICE ..... Petitioner
versus
BALWANT SINGH ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Chander
For the Respondent : Mr T.D. Yadav
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.5.2011 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA No. 3933/2010. The only
issue that is raised before us is with regard to the question of interest on the amount
of leave encashment. The other issue is with regard to the rate of interest which has
been awarded by the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order directed as under:-
"Keeping in view the totality of facts and
circumstances of this matter, the Tribunal is of the
considered opinion that a simple interest at the rate
of 9% per annum should be granted to the
applicant on the delayed payment released on
23.4.2010 and 19.07.2010 from the date of
retirement of the applicant, i.e., from 01.09.2003
till the actual payment is made. Ordered
accordingly. The respondents shall comply with
the above said directions within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the other
amounts are concerned, interest is admittedly payable on them though only at the
rate of 8% per annum. However, in so far as the leave encashment amount is
concerned, according to him, no interest is payable on the delayed payment of it. A
further submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in
any event, the rate of interest should be 8% and not 9% as awarded by the Tribunal.
4. The first issue that we have to consider is whether any interest, at all, is
payable on the delayed payment of the leave encashment amount. This question
need not detain us any longer inasmuch as recently, in the case of Government of
NCT of Delhi v. S.K. Srivastava: WP(C) No. 1186/2012 which was decided on
29.02.2012, we had decided that interest would be payable on delayed payment of
the leave encashment amount where the delay is on account of no fault on the part
of the employee. In that decision, we had observed as under:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner states that
all other dues had been paid to the respondent
along with interest at the GPF rate, but since there
was no provision in the leave rules for grant of
interest, that is why the present petition has been
filed. We do not agree with the submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
because there are no rules providing for grant of
interest, the respondent would not be entitled to the
same. There is also no bar to the grant of interest
whenever the leave encashment amount is delayed
for no fault on the part of the employee. The
Government has retained the money from the year
2000 till 2011, which, in any event, was due to the
respondent in the year 2000 itself, particularly in
view of the fact that even the conditions specified
in Rule 39(3) had not been complied with.
Consequently, grant of interest on the said amount
at the GPF rate by the Tribunal cannot be faulted.
In any event, we may also point out that between
2000 and 2011, because of inflation, the real value
of the amount that was due to the respondent had
substantially eroded, the payment of interest at the
GPF rate would only be a kind of balm applied to
the injury suffered by the respondent. It may, in
fact, actually turn out that the petitioner would not
be paying anything more in real terms than what it
was liable to pay in the year 2000."
Thus following the said decision, interest would be payable by the petitioner
even on the leave encashment amount and, therefore, the Tribunal's decision in this
regard cannot be faulted. In the case of S.K. Srivastava (supra), we had also
directed that the rate of interest be granted at the GPF rate. The learned counsel for
the respondent has placed before us a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Ors: JT 2000 (5) SC 171, where the
Supreme Court had granted interest on, inter alia, the delayed payment of the leave
encashment amount at the rate of 18% per annum. The relevant portion of the said
Supreme Court decision is as under:-
"2. The appellant retired from service on 31st
August, 1997. From the response, filed by the
respondent, it is clear that most of the payments of
the retiral benefits to her were made long after she
retired on 31st August, 1997. The details of the
payments so made are as under:
S.No. Particulars Amount Paid Date
(i) GPF 90% Rs 1,80,899.00 27.11.1997
(ii) GPF 10% Rs 20,751.00 25.04.1998
(iii) GIS Rs 13,379.00 27.02.1998
(iv) Enchashment of leave Rs 41,358.00 27.09.1998
(v) Arrears of pay Rs 15,495.00 27.09.1998
(vi) Gratuity Rs 1,09,753.00 05.12.1998
(vii) Commuted pension Rs 20,484.00 05.12.1998
(viii) Detained amount Rs 45,000.00 05.11.1999
3. In case of an employee retiring after having
rendered service, it is expected that all the payment
of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of
retirement or soon thereafter if for some
unforeseen circumstances the payments could not
be made on the date of retirement.
4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or
justification for not making the payments for
months together. We, therefore, direct the
respondent to pay the appellant within 12 weeks
from today simple interest at the rate of 18% per
cent with effect from the date of her retirement i.e.
31st August, 1997 till the date of payment."
5. Since in the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court had directed that
interest be paid at as high a rate as 18% per annum on both gratuity as well as the
leave encashment amount, we see no reason to interfere with the directions of the
Tribunal granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V. K. JAIN, J
MARCH 13, 2012
bg
