Delhi High Court
General Insurance Corporation Of India ... vs Shri P.C. Srivastava, Assistant ... on 23 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 131(2006)DLT115
Author: Madan B. Lokur
Bench: Chief Justice, Madan B. Lokur
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Appellants filed an appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent directed against judgment and order dated 19th February, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge in CW No.552/78.
2. According to learned counsel for the Appellants there are three issues that arise in this appeal. Firstly, whether the categorization of Respondent No.1 as a Senior Assistant with consequential benefits of enhanced pay and status was correct and proper; secondly, whether Respondent No.1 is entitled to interest on the payments said to be due to him and thirdly whether he is entitled to costs as awarded by the learned Single Judge.
3. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellants does not press this because it is submitted that Respondent No.1 has since retired and the judgment has been given effect to. As such this issue is completely academic.
4. Insofar as the question of payment is concerned, the learned Single Judge has awarded interest at 6% per annum on the delayed payments. We do not see any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in this regard. Respondent No.1 was entitled to his dues which were not being paid by the Appellants despite the fact that a similar issue had been decided in favor of other similarly placed employees by the Calcutta High Court, which view was upheld by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. vs. National Forum of Special Assistants WP (C) No. 1573/86 decided on 14.2.95. In spite of this, payments due to Respondent No.1 and others similarly placed were withheld for which the Appellants must bear the consequences. It must be appreciated that interest is a normal accretion on capital and is not a penalty. If the same had been paid in time to Respondent No.1 he would have certainly earned interest thereon. The Appellants cannot take the benefit of withholding the money legally due to Respondent No.1. We, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay interest at 6% per annum. We direct the Appellants to work out the amount and pay the same as soon as possible, preferably within four weeks from today.
5. Insofar as costs are concerned, it is again quite clear that the Appellants have unnecessarily dragged the Respondents into litigation. The Letters Patent Appeal was filed in 2002 even though it was covered by a decision of the Supreme Court rendered as far back as in 1995. There is no reason why the Appellants should have continued with the proceedings unnecessarily. We do not think it appropriate to interfere with the imposition of costs by the learned Single Judge.
6. We direct the Appellants to pay the costs as soon as possible and preferably within four weeks to Respondent No.1.
7. The appeal is dismissed.