AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay 12% interest to the respondents on the amount which was unpaid to the said respondents and was later on paid by the appellant.
The writ petition was filed by the respondents who were the employees of Export Inspection Agency, Delhi. They were entitled to pension although the appellant seems to term it as VRS benefits. On 08.07.1997, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to make payment of the balance amount due to the respondents within four weeks. The said writ petition was filed in the year 1995. A similar question as raised in that petition was also subject matter of writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court, Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court. The Calcutta High Court had passed an order on 26.09.1996 allowing the writ petition and granting to the petitioners therein 12% compounded interest. The contention raised before us by the counsel appearing for the appellant is that although the Calcutta High Court had given 12% interest, the Bombay High Court had given only 8% as also the Kerala High Court in the petitions pending before the said High Courts. On the same analogy, counsel states that issue of direction for payment of interest at 12% is on the higher side, which should be at only 8% in terms of the orders passed by the Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court.
We have considered the submissions of the counsel appearing for the appellant in the light of the facts of the present case. The learned Single Judge has held in the facts of the present case that the stand taken by the appellant that they are liable to pay only 8% interest is unreasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge held that in a case like this, interest should be levied at 12% per annum. The said order is passed exercising the discretion vested in the learned Single Judge. Reason for exercising the aforesaid discretion is also given by the learned Single Judge when he says that 25 petitioners, who had filed the writ petition, have been awaiting the decision since the year 1995 and that the respondents have had the benefit of a reasoned order dated 08.07.1997, which admittedly was not the subject matter of any appeal or challenge before any Court and which had attained finality. It cannot be said that the aforesaid discretion which was exercised by the learned Single Judge is in any manner arbitrary.
We, Therefore, find no merit in this appeal. LPA 47/2008 and CM Nos. 1542-43/2008 are accordingly dismissed.