Jharkhand High Court
Tapan Chakraborty vs M/S. Bccl Through Its Cmd on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 5225 of 2019
Tapan Chakraborty ........... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. BCCL through its CMD, "Koyla Bhawan", Kolya Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township,
P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
2. Director Personnel, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., "Koyla Bhawan", Kolya Nagar, P.O.
BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
3. H.O.D., Executive Establishment, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., "Koyla Bhawan", Kolya
Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
4. General Manager (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., "Koyla Bhawan", Kolya
Nagar, P.O. BCCL Township, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
........... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate
For the BCCL : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
---------
04/ 17.08.2021 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon
the respondents to pay interest on amount of leave encashment for the period from
01.03.2016 to 25.06.2019, since the same was paid belatedly.
3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Mining Trainee
at Kunustoria Colliery of ECL on 20.04.1977 and thereafter, his service was
regularized as Mining Helper in the month of March, 1981. Thereafter, on various
occasions, the petitioner was promoted to the higher posts/ grades and finally, he
was posted as Superintendent of Mines/ Manager of Badjna Colliery under Nirsa
Area of ECL in the month of May, 2001. Thereafter, he was further promoted to the
post of Deputy Chief Mining Engineer in May, 2005. In course of duty petitioner
was taken into custody by CBI and released on bail on 27.11.2010, for which he was
put under suspension from 13.05.2010 to 28.03.2011 and at the relevant time, he was
paid subsistence allowance. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked on
03.04.2011 and petitioner was posted as G.M. of Safety Department from April,
2011. Lastly, petitioner was transferred and posted at Directorate Operation as G.M./
Tech. Secretary to Director Operation, BCCL. On attaining the age of
superannuation, the petitioner superannuated from his service on 29.02.2016 from
the post of G.M./ Tech Secretary to Director, Technical Operation of BCCL. It is the
specific case of the petitioner that after retirement, the respondent-BCCL paid only
CMPF amount and started paying pension but retiral benefits like gratuity, leave
encashment, etc. were not released. After filing an application before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, amount of gratuity was released to the petitioner.
Thereafter, when petitioner moved before the respondent-authorities for payment of
amount of leave encashment, the same was also paid to the tune of Rs.11,36,103/- on
25.06.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by delayed payment of leave encashment as
petitioner retired on 29.02.2016 and amount of leave encashment was paid to him on
25.06.2019.
4. Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
strenuously argues that leave encashment of the petitioner was illegally withheld for
more than three years after his retirement and as such, petitioner is entitled to be
compensated by way of interest on delayed payment of leave encashment amount.
5. Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that as the counter-affidavit has not been filed he is not in a position to controvert the
arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the parties and upon
perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that
the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, the payment of leave
encashment to the petitioner has been delayed by the respondents and as such, he is
entitled for the interest on delayed payment of interest. The said issue has already
been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment passed in case of Shashi
Lata Verma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2005) 12 SCC 197. The
relevant paragraphs of said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"3. The Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated
19.02.2003 had granted interest @ 12% per annum on the
amount of leave encashment. Counsel appearing for the Bihar
University had fairly agreed before the Single Judge that if the
interest on the amount of the leave encashment had not been paid
to the appellant, then the same shall be calculated and paid. The
appellant being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Division
Bench, which dismissed the appeal by observing that the
appellant was not entitled to any interest.
6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order of the
Division Bench is set aside to the extent it denied interest to the
appellant on the amount of leave encashment granted by Single
Judge and the order of the Single Judge is restored to that extent.
Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant would be entitled to
interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment of amount of
leave encashment. Rest the order of the Division Bench is
confirmed. No costs."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment delivered on
08.02.2021 in case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi
Kameswari [Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C) No.
12553/2020], has held that salaries and pensions are "rightful entitlements" of
government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with interest at an
appropriate rate. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment is reproduced herein
below:
"14. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions
of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due
to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in
other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees
and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well
settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service
rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a
matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable
rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees
of the State. The State Government has complied with the
directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues
in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of
the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by
the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest
was on account of the action of the Government which was
contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest
cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which
has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be
directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.
15. We accordingly order and direct that in substitution of
the interest rate of 12% per annum which has been awarded by
the High Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall pay
simple interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account
of deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days
from today. ........................................."
7. Admittedly, in the present case payment of leave encashment amount,
which is also part of the retiral benefits has been delayed for three long years and as
such, in view ratio of laid down in the aforesaid judgments, petitioner is entitled for
interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of leave encashment from the date
it has fallen due till the date of its actual payment.
8. However, since petitioner has already filed representation before the
respondents, which is still pending and I hereby direct the respondent-BCCL to
consider the case of the petitioner after providing ample opportunity of hearing to
him and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, taking into
account the prevailing rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial
pronouncements, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
the representation of the petitioner, which shall also be communicated to the
petitioner.
9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/
