Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Central Bank Of India And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065352-DB
Neutral Citation No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(111) LPA-1164-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 09.05.2024
Ashok Kumar ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Bank of India & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar, Appellant-in-person.
Mr.Naveen Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice
CM-2804-LPA-2024
1. Application for condoning the delay of 11 days in filing the
appeal is allowed in view of the averments made in the application duly
supported by affidavit of the appellant and in view of the nominal delay.
Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-1164-2024
3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
21.03.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge whereby CM-4377-CWP-
2024 in CWP-8983-1991 was dismissed.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065352-DB
LPA-1164-2024 (O&M)
4. The Learned Single Judge declined the benefit of interest on
the delayed payment of arrears of pay and allowances while noticing that
the writ petition had been allowed on 12.10.2007 with all consequential
benefits relating to reinstatement. The appellant was released back-
wages/arrears amounting to Rs.37,07,445.61 on which he was seeking
interest. In the original writ petition, there was no such prayer for interest
and neither any specific order was passed. Resultantly, it was held that
after the belated stage of 17 years from the date of disposal of the earlier
writ petition, interest on the back-wages could not be granted since it
would amount to modification of the earlier order.
5. The appellant who is appearing in person has argued that
once he had been given the benefit of reinstatement and the amount had
been withheld, there was scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for interest on the delayed payment as it would form the integral part
of the relief since he had been denied the usage of the said amount.
6. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that prayer
had been made for quashing of the proceedings of the enquiry against the
appellant and for direction to reinstate the appellant with full back-wages.
The writ petition, as noticed, had been allowed primarily on the ground
that he had been acquitted by the Criminal Court but he had been placed
under suspension. The appeal against acquittal had also been declined by
this Court on 27.05.1991 but departmental proceedings had been initiated
only in the year 1990 vide charge-sheet dated 16.05.1990. The Learned
Single Judge had noticed that the appellant was under departmental cloud
from 1978 and therefore, conscious decision to hold domestic enquiry
should have been taken and there was inordinate and unexplained delay
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065352-DB
LPA-1164-2024 (O&M)
and resultantly, the enquiry proceedings were quashed. Relevant part of
the order reads as under:
"18. In the light of foregoing discussion, the present petition shall
stand allowed. The enquiry proceedings shall stand quashed. If
the petitioner has not attained the age of superannuation, he shall
be re-instated forthwith. He shall also be entitled to all the
consequential benefits relatable to re-instatement. If he has retired
from service, he would obviously be entitled to only the
consequential benefits."
7. From the perusal of the above, it would be clear that no
interest was directed to be paid. Apparently, LPA-246-2007 was filed
before this Court by the Bank aggrieved against the said judgment, which
was dismissed on 20.12.2007 in the presence of the counsel for the
appellant having preferred a caveat application. The appellant could have
filed cross-appeal at that point of time seeking the benefit of interest
element but he chose not to do so. Resultantly, he now cannot turn around
and claim the benefit of interest by filing Misc. Application after the
dispute had become final. He also had the choice to file Letters Patent
Appeal against the non-grant of interest but the same was not done. The
respondent-Bank had chosen to file SLP(C) No.2989 of 2008 which was
dismissed on 26.07.2011 and the appellant was present. Even at that
stage, no relief was claimed regarding the benefit of interest while
upholding the order of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.
8. The appellant, thereafter, filed CWP-11438-2015, 4 years
after the matter had become final seeking the benefit of interest. The
Learned Single Judge held that relief claimed and not granted or any relief
not claimed, would amount to non-grant of the said relief by the competent
Court of law and therefore, interest could not be claimed in the subsequent
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065352-DB
LPA-1164-2024 (O&M)
proceedings as it would amount to modifying the judgment which had
attained finality upto the Apex Court. Resultantly the writ petition was
held not to be maintainable and was dismissed on 11.12.2023. Relevant
portion of the judgment read as under:
"8. It is a settled principle of law that any relief claimed and not
granted or any relief not claimed, will amount to the non-grant of
the said relief by the competent Court of law. The petitioner, who
appears in person, concedes the fact that no interest was claimed
for while seeking the reinstatement with consequential benefits.
That being factual situation, the petitioner cannot claim the interest
in the subsequent proceedings as grant of the said benefit will
amount to modifying the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 12.10.2007, which has already attained finality upto
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
9. Keeping in view the above, the claim of interest in the present
writ petition is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in the earlier proceedings dated
12.10.2007 by which the benefit of reinstatement with
consequential benefits was granted.
10. No ground is made out for the grant of interest as being
claimed. However, the liberty is with the petitioner to file
appropriate application in CWP No.8983 of 1991 in case he is
aggrieved for the non-grant of the interest by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court while passing order on 12.10.2007.
11. Dismissed."
9. Thus, it is apparent that CM-4377-CWP-2024 in CWP-8983-
1991 was then filed which has also been dismissed. Accordingly, we are
of the considered opinion that principle of finality has to be given to the
dispute once the appellant had got an order in his favour way-back on
12.10.2007 but without the grant of interest. It was open to him to agitate
for the same by filing appeal or cross-objection seeking the necessary
relief in the LPA filed by the Bank. Having chosen not to do so and the
matter having attained finality before the Apex Court and having also got
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065352-DB
LPA-1164-2024 (O&M)
no success in the separate writ petition which order has become final, it
would not be appropriate to grant any relief on account of the application
having been filed on account of the liberty given by the Writ Court. The
appellant may have been prejudiced on account of the action of the Bank,
however, he chose not to prefer his remedy in accordance with law at the
relevant point of time. The principle of constructive res-judicata would
also operate against him apart from the principle of estoppel.
13. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, we find no
reasonable ground to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single
Judge dismissing the application seeking grant of interest on delayed
payment of arrears of pay and allowances. Consequently, the present
appeal is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
09.05.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
5 of 5
