Delhi High Court
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Nand Lal Singh on 4 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.09.2012
+ W.P.(C) 5505/2012
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ... Petitioner
versus
NAND LAL SINGH ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr V. K. Tandon
For the Respondent : None
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The Government of NCT of Delhi is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 2629/2011, whereby the respondent's claim for interest on delayed payment of his retiral dues has been allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has fallen into error inasmuch as there is no provision for making payment on account of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues other than gratuity WP(C) 5505/2012 Page 1 of 4 which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been paid with interest. The Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter in the following manner:-
"3. The short question for consideration thus is whether the applicant is entitled to interest for delayed payment of other retiral dues in the absence of any provision for it in the rules. The question is no longer res integra. The applicant relies upon the case of S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44, wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."
4. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents' action denying interest on delayed payment of retiral dues of the applicant for the reason of absence of any rule is not tenable. As a matter of fact, the payment of interest for delayed payment of retiral dues itself is in the nature of indemnification of the loss suffered by the applicant on account of wrongful deprivation of financial enjoyment of the dues to which he is otherwise entitled to in law. Admittedly, such interest is payable when delay is not attributable to the applicant in any manner. The respondents have not alleged any delay attributable to the applicant herein. Their only plea is that there is no provision in the rules providing for payment of such interest which plea is not WP(C) 5505/2012 Page 2 of 4 sustainable in law in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment referred to above.
5. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 rejecting the applicant's claim for interest for delayed payment is quashed and set aside."
3. This issue of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues is no longer debatable before this Court in view of the several decisions taken on this subject. Two of the said decisions are:-
(i) Government of NCT of Delhi v. S. K. Srivastava:
WP(C)1186/2012 decided on 29.02.2012; and
(ii) Delhi Police v. Balwant Singh: WP(C) 1227/2012 decided on 13.03.2012, wherein this Court clearly held that interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, such as leave encashment amount and delayed payment of pension, would be allowable to the retiring employee. This Court had also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v.
State of U.P. and Others: JT 2000 (5) SC 171.
4. Consequently, following the said decisions, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The writ petition is WP(C) 5505/2012 Page 3 of 4 dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted four weeks' time to make the said payment of interest at the GPF rate.
Dasti.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 04, 2012 SR WP(C) 5505/2012 Page 4 of 4