Jharkhand High Court
Julius Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 5 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 549 of 2023
Julius Kachhap, aged about 79 years, s/o late Victor Kachhap, r/o BG-6/4A,
Sharon Apartment, DIOCESAN Village, Sirom Toli Chowk, Old Hazaribagh
Road, PO-GPO, Ranchi, PS-Chutia, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
3. Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO & PS-Doranda, District-
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP-II
-------
Order No. 4 /Dated: 5th February 2024
The appellant is feeling aggrieved, albeit unnecessarily, by the
writ Court's order dated 21st July 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6316 of 2022.
2. By this order, the writ Court declined to accept the prayer for
interest and compensation to the appellant on account of the delayed payment
of Travelling Allowances.
3. This is not in dispute that the appellant raised a bill in
February 2007 for Rs.69,935/- claiming Travelling Allowance for bringing
the dead body of his wife from AIMS at Delhi to Ranchi. This is also a matter
of record that Rs. 58,685/- was sanctioned by the competent authority but,
according to the appellant, the said amount was not paid to him. Constrained,
he approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6805 of 2018 which was disposed of
by an order dated 13th January 2021. In the said writ proceeding, the appellant
had raised a grievance as regards reduction in the Travelling Allowance bill
submitted by him and, accordingly, a direction was issued to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha
to do the needful. Obviously in the said writ proceeding the appellant did not
claim interest on the sanctioned amount of Rs.58,685/- or at least no such
direction was issued by the writ Court. The order passed in W.P.(S) No. 6805
of 2018 attained finality on this count and, therefore, a prayer for interest on
the unpaid amount could not have been raised in the subsequent writ
proceeding. Such a prayer shall be barred by constructive res-judicate
inasmuch as this relief was not sought by the appellant in W.P.(S) No. 6805
of 2018 and, therefore, the same is not permissible to be raised in the
subsequent writ proceeding. The writ Court has made the following
observations while dismissing W.P.(S) No. 6316 of 2022:
"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts
and circumstances of this case it appears that the amount was due to be paid
to the petitioner for quite some time which was sanctioned in the year 2015
and was ultimately paid pursuant to order passed by this court in W.P. (S) No.
6805 of 2018 decided on 13.01.2021 by directing the respondents to make
payment but no order for payment of any interest was passed by this court.
Moreover, no provision for statutory/penal interest as prayed for by the
petitioner in this writ petition has been shown by the petitioner. This court is
not inclined to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for awarding any interest on the amount which has already been paid to the
petitioner pursuant to the earlier round of writ petition being W.P. (S) No.
6805 of 2018 disposed of on 13.01.2021.
7. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would refer
to the judgment in "The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Dinavahi Lakshmi
Kameswari" (2021) 11 SCC 543 to submit that the appellant is entitled for
interest on Rs.58,685/- which remained unpaid for about 15 years. At the first
glance, we observe that in "Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari" the deferred
portion of salaries and pensions were not paid to the employees. This is no
longer in the realm of doubt that salary and pension to a government employee
are akin to right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The Travelling Allowance which is paid to a government employee under a
statutory rule cannot be claimed as a matter of right and such payments are
governed by the extant rules framed by the employer. The writ Court has
rightly observed that there is no provision for payment of interest over the
unpaid amount of Travelling Allowance.
5. While so, L.P.A No. 549 of 2023 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Amit
