Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dr Meghnath Satruji Ramteke vs Department Of Posts on 9 July, 2024
1 OA No.917/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.917/2022
Date of Decision: 09th July, 2024.
CORAM: Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Dr. Meghnath S/o Satruji Ramteke,
Age - 70 years, Occ: CG Employ Retired,
R/o. House No.5-3, 856/18 Gandhinagari,
MIDC Areas Chikalthana,
Aurangabad - 431 006. ... Applicant
(In person)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
through the Director General of Post,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Post master General
Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - GPO
3. The Post Master General Aurangabad Region
Aurangabad Cantonment 431 002. ... Respondents
(Shri Sachin Patil, proxy counsel for Advocate Shri
Ravi S. Bangar)
ORAL ORDER
The applicant, who appears in person, drew my attention to the page Nos.40 and 41 of the OA which is a typed copy of the letter dated 24.07.2008. As per this letter, the applicant was to receive the 2 OA No.917/2022 leave salary for 47 days EL balance at the time of retirement date amounting to Rs.17012/- and difference of PL-Bonus-1996-97, 97-98 for the period from 30.04.1996 to 23.04.1997 and salary of Rs.68,795/-. These 3 payments were due to the applicant as per this letter in 1997-98 but were paid to the applicant only on 24.07.2008. The applicant is seeking interest on the delayed payment.
2. The respondents have filed their reply. They have stated that in OA No.260/2006, the Tribunal had directed the release of the above-mentioned payments. The payments were released. Since there was no specific direction regarding interest, the payment was made without any interest.
3. The applicant refutes this reply filed by the respondents on the ground that he had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3018/2015, after the decision of the Tribunal seeking interest. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 26.09.2022 granting liberty to the applicant to challenge the order dated 13.08.2012 before this 3 OA No.917/2022 Tribunal. The order of 13.08.2012 is the decision of the Office of the Superintendent, R.M.S.L. Division, Bhusawal to deny interest to the applicant based on the decision of OA No.260/2006.
4. The applicant relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., AIR 2008 SC 1077 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rule. If there are Administrative Instruction, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence 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. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 'bounty' is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
He, therefore, submits that owing to the liberty which has been granted to him by the Hon'ble High Court to challenge the order of 13.08.2012, this OA was filed. The present OA is restricted only to the grant of interest for the payments as noted by us above.
4 OA No.917/2022
5. The only reason advanced by the respondents is that the Tribunal while disposing of OA No.260/2006 had not granted any interest on the delayed payment. They have also stated that one Writ Petition No.8777/2012 had been filed by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The same was disposed of on 16.01.2013 by passing the following order:
"11. We, therefore, allow the petition and direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest on the sum of Rs.29,133/- @29,133/- @12% p.a. from the date on which each installment of the amount recovered from the petitioner till actual payment to him. The interest shall be compounded at the rest of every three months.
12. This interest and compounding shall include costs of this petition as well.
13. We direct that the respondents shall make full payment to the petitioner within 3 months from today.
14. We hope and trust and the petitioner will not be required to come to this court or any other forum for execution of this direction.
15. Rule is made absolute in terms of foregoing paras.11 to 14."' A bare perusal of the order passed in this Writ Petition would show that it is not concerning the payments under 3 heads i.e. Leave encashment, salary, and difference of PL bonus, as claimed in the present 5 OA No.917/2022 petition
6. I have gone through the decision of the Co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal. The Tribunal has not rejected the claim for interest, if any.
7. However, given the settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Dua (supra), the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the applicant @8% p.a. within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (J) ma.