Delhi High Court
Dalbir Singh Sohi vs The General Manager & Anr on 30 August, 2019
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30/08/2019
+ LPA No.670/2018
DALBIR SINGH SOHI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate.
versus
THE GENERAL MANAGER & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
The decision of the learned Single Judge in an application for
modification of order, filed post the pronouncement of the judgment
on 17.08.2018, wherein interest on leave encashment and gratuity was
declined, has led to filing of the present appeal.
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single
Judge of this court seeking quashing of order dated 07.02.2000 read
with corrigendum dated 06.06.2000, whereby the appellant stood
dismissed from service, as well as of appellate order dated 18.08.2000
and review order dated 15.06.2002 made by respondent No. 1.
LPA 670/2018 page 1 of 5
3. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the
respondents to accept the resignation of the appellant from the date he
resigned i.e. 05.02.1992. In addition, the learned Single Judge was
further pleased to direct respondent No.2/bank that should the
appellant be entitled to any benefits consequent to the judgment, the
same be disbursed within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a
certified copy of the judgment.
4. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that taking into consideration the harassment which the
appellant had to go through on account of the issuance of three
charge-sheets, the learned Single Judge was pleased to award costs of
Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the respondents.
5. Consequent to the judgment, which has attained finality as far
as the bank is concerned, the appellant became entitled to gratuity,
leave encashment and some component of provident fund.
Ms. Mohan submits that since the amount had accrued to him as far
back as in the year 1992 and the same was withheld by respondent
No.2/bank illegally, which is apparent from the observations of the
learned Single Judge, in all fairness the appellant should be entitled to
interest.
6. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel for the respondents however
submits that the learned Single Judge in his wisdom had awarded
heavy costs of Rs.50,000/- which would take care of the harassment,
if any, meted-out to the petitioner and thus the learned Single Judge
has rightly declined to grant any interest. Mr. Arora also submits that
no prayer for interest was made in the writ petition.
LPA 670/2018 page 2 of 5
7. We have heard counsel for the parties. We find force in the
submissions made by Ms. Mohan. Learned Single Judge in paras 32,
33 and 36 of judgment dated 17.08.2018 observes as under:-
"32. To this Court, the manner in which the Bank has
treated the petitioner is appalling, to say the least. The
petitioner has obviously been hounded. Once the
disciplinary authority had, vide order dated 7th October,
1993, exonerated the petitioner of the charge of
unauthorized absence after 6th July, 1991, there could be
no question of the same charge, forming subject matter of
a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. It is also seen,
from the order dated 7th October, 1993, that the
petitioner's resignation has been accepted as a matter of
record. In fact, the said order states that "since he has
resigned there is no question of his further joining his
duties." This is, ex facie, contrary to the observation, in
the inquiry report dated 28th November, 2001 (supra), that
the petitioner continued to be the employee of the Bank
and was, therefore, required to submit his property
returns.
33. That the entire exercise of issuance of the third
chargesheet, as well as all proceedings following
thereupon, was tainted by malice in law as well as on
facts, and targeted at removing the petitioner from the
establishment of the Bank, any which way, is also
apparent from the summary nature of the inquiry report,
dated 28th January, 2001, as well as the total non-
application of mind, by the disciplinary authority, the
appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, to
the petitioner's repeated references to the earlier
proceedings against him, which had culminated in his
exoneration.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
LPA 670/2018 page 3 of 5
36. Should the petitioner be entitled to any benefits
consequent to this judgment, they shall be disbursed to the
petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt, by the respondent, of a certified copy of this
judgment."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. It is evident therefore that the learned Single Judge was pained
to observe that entire exercise of issuance of the third charge-sheet as
well as all proceedings which followed were tainted by malice in law
as well as on facts, and were targeted at removing the petitioner from
the bank.
9. From the above it is evident that the delay in disbursal of
legitimate dues to the petitioner was a result of needless and
malicious proceedings. While the petitioner may have been
compensated for the harassment he faced by awarding costs, that
would not count as recompense for the delay in payment to him of his
legitimate dues.
10. It is a settled legal principle that payment of interest must
attend delay in payment of money due, unless there is good reason for
the contrary. In the present case, there was no justification for not
paying the petitioner his monetary dues. This principle has been
consistently accepted by the courts. To cite but one judgment, in its
decision in the case of Union of India vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia
(Retd.) & Ors. reported as (1994) 2 SCC 240, where the claim inter
alia was for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits on account
LPA 670/2018 page 4 of 5
of gratuity, leave encashment and reimbursement of medical charges,
the Supreme Court observed as under :
" ... Since this payment was delayed by a year or so, the
original petitioner claimed interest on the balance amount at
12% per annum, which has been rightly allowed by the High
Court. Once it is established that an amount legally due to a
party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding
the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by
the Court. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with
the High Court's order directing payment of interest at 12 %
per annum on the balance of the death - cum - retirement
gratuity which was delayed by almost a year. We uphold this
part of the High Court's order."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Resultantly, we are of the view that in the present case the
appellant be granted interest for the delayed payments. We
accordingly grant interest @ 6% per annum simple, from 1992 till the
date of payment on the monies owed, which as calculated, comes to
Rs.1,65,171.44/-. This amount be paid within four weeks.
12. With the above directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
AUGUST 30, 2019
Ne
LPA 670/2018 page 5 of 5
