Delhi High Court
Parkash Chandra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 November, 2019
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment : 18th November, 2019
+ W.P.(C) 12054/2019
PARKASH CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava and Mr.
Bhuvanesh, Advocates for
UOI/respondent no.1.
Mr. N.K. Singh, Advocate for Mrs.
Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel
GNCTD for respondents no.2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM.APPL 49369/2019(Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12054/2019
3. Present petition is directed against an order dated 26.08.2019 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal'). The first portion
of the order reads as under:
"For certain employees, that too, who are accused of
charges of corruption, greed for money is almost unlimited.
They make an effort to present a picture as though their
involvement in such cases is to be rewarded. This is one
such."
4. At the very outset, we are unable to appreciate the observations made
by the Tribunal since in the third para of the order, it has been observed
that although serious criminal charges were made against the petitioner,
he was acquitted on 17.09.2015. Although there is no clarity as to
whether any appeal was filed against the order of acquittal, there were
certainly no departmental proceedings initiated against this officer. In
this backdrop, we find the observations made by the Tribunal to be
completely misplaced.
5. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking interest on delayed
payments of his arrears consequent upon his promotion and increase in
salary. Admittedly, some payments were made on these three dates:
12.06.2017 : Rs.1,69,518/-
14.06.2017 : Rs.5,48,245/-
15.12.2018 : Rs.7,96,609/-
6. We have asked the learned counsel for the respondents to give reasons
as to why payments were not made once the petitioner was acquitted on
17.09.2015. There is no plausible explanation rendered, except citing
procedural delays. The first payment was released to the petitioner on
12.06.2017 while the third payment was made beyond the period of
three months for unexplained reasons of procedural delays and
calculations but without any just cause. In our view such delay cannot
be condoned.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of T.R. Gupta v. MCD
and Anr., [(W.P.(C).No.8443/2011] decided on 01.12.2011 to support
his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
would be entitled to interest @ 8%.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the
petitioner will be paid interest @ 8% p. a. from 01.01.2016 for the
delayed payments as set-out above for the respective periods of delay.
The payments be released within six weeks from today. The cost of
Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner is set aside.
9. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
G.S. SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
NOVEMBER 18, 2019
pst
