Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Nand Lal Singh on 4 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2012
+ W.P.(C) 5505/2012
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Petitioner
versus
NAND LAL SINGH ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr V. K. Tandon
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by the order dated
24.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,
New Delhi in OA 2629/2011, whereby the respondent's claim for interest on
delayed payment of his retiral dues has been allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has
fallen into error inasmuch as there is no provision for making payment on
account of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues other than gratuity
which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been paid with
interest. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter in the
following manner:-
"3. The short question for consideration thus is whether the
applicant is entitled to interest for delayed payment of other
retiral dues in the absence of any provision for it in the rules.
The question is no longer res integra. The applicant relies upon
the case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3
SCC 44, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
"If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the
appellant could claim payment of interest relying on
such rules. If there are administrative instructions,
guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the
appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis.
But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative
instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim
interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."
4. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents' action denying
interest on delayed payment of retiral dues of the applicant for
the reason of absence of any rule is not tenable. As a matter of
fact, the payment of interest for delayed payment of retiral dues
itself is in the nature of indemnification of the loss suffered by
the applicant on account of wrongful deprivation of financial
enjoyment of the dues to which he is otherwise entitled to in
law. Admittedly, such interest is payable when delay is not
attributable to the applicant in any manner. The respondents
have not alleged any delay attributable to the applicant herein.
Their only plea is that there is no provision in the rules
providing for payment of such interest which plea is not
sustainable in law in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment referred to above.
5. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated
30.6.2011 rejecting the applicant's claim for interest for delayed
payment is quashed and set aside."
3. This issue of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues is no longer
debatable before this Court in view of the several decisions taken on this
subject. Two of the said decisions are:-
(i) Government of NCT of Delhi v. S. K. Srivastava:
WP(C)1186/2012 decided on 29.02.2012; and
(ii) Delhi Police v. Balwant Singh: WP(C) 1227/2012 decided on
13.03.2012,
wherein this Court clearly held that interest on delayed payment of retiral
dues, such as leave encashment amount and delayed payment of pension,
would be allowable to the retiring employee. This Court had also placed
reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v.
State of U.P. and Others: JT 2000 (5) SC 171.
4. Consequently, following the said decisions, we find that the view
taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The writ petition is
dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks' time to make the
said payment of interest at the GPF rate.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
SR
