Delhi High Court
S.K.Kalra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 20 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11160/2016, W.P.(C) 11156/2016, W.P.(C)
10993/2016, W.P.(C) 11177/2016
% 20th February, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11160/2016
S.K.KALRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.C.Gupta and Mr. Deepak
Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, CGSC for
R-1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kr. Singh, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for R-3.
+ W.P.(C) 11156/2016
P.K.SINGLOO ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.C.Gupta and Mr. Deepak
Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Brajesh Kumar, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kr. Singh, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for R-3.
+ W.P.(C) 10993/2016
N K MEHTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.C.Gupta and Mr. Deepak
Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for
R-1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kr. Singh, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for R-3.
+ W.P.(C) 11177/2016
ASHOK KUMAR LOOMBA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.C.Gupta and Mr. Deepak
Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Brajesh Kumar, CGSC for
R-1.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr.
Gaurav Kr. Singh, Adv. for R-2.
Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) No. 11160/2016
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner who was an employee of the respondent
no.2/Punjab National Bank seeks the relief of being granted interest
from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment of
service benefits which are terminal benefits.
2. It is not disputed that as against the petitioner order of
compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority on
10.3.2014. The respondent no.2/Punjab National Bank/employer, as
per the counsel for the petitioner has paid interest on the amount
payable as service benefits/terminal benefits from 10.3.2014 till the
date of actual payment. Counsel for the petitioner however argues that
petitioner is entitled to interest not from the date of the order of the
disciplinary authority being 10.3.2014 but from the earlier date of
31.8.2013 when the petitioner superannuated from services.
3. I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the
petitioner because issue of interest arises once there is certainty with
regard to payment of principal. Once there is certainty with regard to
payment of principal and there is delay in payment of such principal
amount then the issue arises for interest of delayed payment.
Punishment which was to be imposed upon the petitioner was not
known till 10.3.2014, and therefore, only when the disciplinary
authority passed the punishment order on 10.3.2014, the employer had
known that what are the service benefits/terminal benefits which would
be paid to the petitioner, and there is therefore certainty with respect to
the amount payable to the petitioner only w.e.f 10.3.2014. In fact, in
my opinion, the employer need not have paid interest from 10.3.2014
but could have even paid from about one month later because surely
some reasonable time is required to the employer to calculate the
amount due as on 10.3.2014, but ignoring that aspect the employer has
paid interest from 10.3.2014.
4. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the office
order dated 18.6.2014 issued by the respondent no.2/employer to argue
that as per this office order interest is payable on delayed payment of
gratuity, and therefore, it is argued that interest is also to be paid on
delayed payment of service benefits/terminal benefits. I however
cannot agree for the reason that as regards gratuity there is a specific
circular which entitles payment of interest to an employee, that
position cannot be automatically extended for leave encashment
benefit, and for which there is no such similar circular.
5. In view of the above, since there is no delay in payment of
service benefits/terminal dues of the petitioner, petitioner cannot be
granted the relief of interest as claimed in this writ petition.
6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 11156/2016
7. This writ petition is also dismissed on account of the
reasoning given while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 11160/2016 inasmuch
as the respondent no.2/Punjab National Bank/employer has paid
interest to the petitioner from the date of the order of the disciplinary
authority dated 1.6.2015 till the date of payment. Petitioner was
inflicted the punishment of reduction of pay to six lower stages.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 10993/2016
9. This writ petition would stand dismissed partially on the
reasoning given while dismissing W.P. (C) No. 11160/2016, but also
for the additional reason, and as also noted in the order dismissing
W.P.(C) No. 11160/2016, that some reasonable amount of time is
always required for the employer to calculate the dues payable, and in
this case, punishment order was imposed on 14.3.2014 and petitioner
received his service benefits/terminal benefits on 25.3.2014. Hence no
interest can be paid as claimed by the petitioner as there is no
unreasonable delay.
10. Dismissed.
W.P.(C) No. 11177/2016
11. In this case the date of the order of the disciplinary
authority imposing punishment is 30.6.2014 and the petitioner has been
paid his service benefits/terminal benefits on 21.7.2014 i.e within three
weeks of the date of the imposition of the order by the disciplinary
authority, and which therefore is a reasonable time allowable
to the employer for calculating and making payment of service
benefits/terminal benefits. Hence no interest can be paid as claimed by
the petitioner.
12. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 20, 2017/ib VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
