Mahesh Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The father of the applicants, Late Babunandan, was working as a Driver in the respondents’ department and was removed from service vide order dated 07.06.1985. After prolonged litigation, this Tribunal, vide order dated 13.04.2011, quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to treat him as having continued in service until the date of his superannuation and to calculate and pay his admissible pension and other terminal benefits. The writ petition filed by the respondents against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.12.2022. In compliance with the order of this Tribunal, the respondents paid a total amount of ₹7,08,560/- to the applicants on 15.04.2016 towards arrears of salary, DA, PLB, pension, leave encashment and DCRG. Thereafter, the applicants sought interest on the delayed payment, but their claim were rejected vide order dated 04.02.2025 on the ground that this Tribunal had not issued any direction for payment of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants have filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment.

Per contra, the respondents, in their counter affidavit, submitted that this Tribunal, vide order dated 13.04.2011 passed in OA No. 1352 of 2004, had directed them to pay the admissible arrears of salary, pension and other terminal benefits to the legal heirs of Late Babunandan, without granting any interest. In compliance with the said order, the admissible dues were paid to the applicants on 15.04.2016. The respondents further submitted that the delay in payment occurred due to the pendency of departmental and criminal proceedings and the related litigation. The applicant subsequently raised a claim for interest through representations dated 15.01.2025 and 13.02.2025, which was rejected vide order dated 04.02.2025. According to the respondents, the applicants are not entitled to interest as claimed, particularly in view of Rule 87 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, as the delay was connected with the pending proceedings. The respondents, therefore, prayed that the Original Application be dismissed.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants, reiterating the facts stated in the Original Application and denying the contents of the counter affidavit. No new facts have been brought on record in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of arrears of salary, DA, PLB, pension, leave encashment and DCRG, as the delay was not attributable to them. It is contended that the respondents cannot deny interest merely on the ground that no specific direction for payment of interest was issued by this Tribunal in the earlier Original Application. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 40, as well as the relevant Railway Board instructions, including RBE No. 169/2008 dated 06.11.2008, which provides for interest on delayed payment of DCRG, subject to the applicable conditions. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the delay in payment of the admissible dues was prolonged litigation filed by the respondents themselves and that the applicants should not be made to suffer financially due to the respondents’ failure to make timely payment. Thus, he prayed that the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 be quashed and the respondents be directed to pay interest at the claimed rate of 12% per annum on the delayed dues, along with such further interest as may be admissible under law.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants’ claim is not legally sustainable. It was contended that this Tribunal, while deciding OA No. 1352 of 2004 vide order dated 13.04.2011, had directed the respondents to calculate and pay the admissible arrears of salary, pension and other terminal benefits to the legal heirs of Late Babunandan but had not issued any direction for payment of interest. In compliance with the said order, the admissible dues were paid to the applicants on 15.04.2016. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the delay in payment occurred due to the pendency of departmental and criminal proceedings and the subsequent litigation, and was not the result of any deliberate inaction on the part of the respondents. It was also contended that, under Rule 87 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993, interest is payable only subject to the prescribed conditions, which, according to the respondents, are not satisfied in the present case. The judgments and Railway Board instructions relied upon by the applicants were stated to be distinguishable on the facts of the case. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the impugned order did not warrant any interference and that the Original Application be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

It is evident from the record that the applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 1352 of 2004. The operative portion of the order dated 13.04.2011 passed in the said Original Application is reproduced below:—

If the phraseology used in the judgment and order dated 13.04.2011 passed in OA No. 1352 of 2004 is taken into consideration, it is evident that the order of removal from service imposed upon Late Babunandan was set aside by this Tribunal. Since the employee had died during the pendency of the Original Application, his legal heirs were substituted in his place. This Tribunal further observed that Late Babunandan would be deemed to have continued in service till the date on which he would have attained the age of superannuation. However, the relief granted in the said Original Application did not include any specific direction for payment of interest on the arrears of salary and other admissible dues.

The stand of the respondents is that, since no specific direction for payment of interest on the arrears was issued in the judgment and order dated 13.04.2011, the applicants are not entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment.

Admittedly, OA No. 1352 of 2004 was decided on 13.04.2011, and the respondents were granted six months from the date of receipt of the order to comply with the directions issued therein. The writ petition filed by the respondents against the said judgment and order was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 02.12.2022, as is evident from Annexure A-4. However, in the absence of any stay order, the respondents paid the admissible dues to the applicants in the year 2016 itself. In these circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the applicant’s claim for interest on account of the delay in payment of the admissible dues, particularly when this Tribunal had directed that Late Babunandan be treated as having continued in service till the date of his superannuation for all purposes. Although the applicant has claimed interest on the arrears from 13.04.2011, interest shall be calculated from the date following the expiry of the six-month period granted for compliance with the order, as indicated in paragraph 17 of the Original Application. It is, however, clarified that the applicant is not entitled to any interest on the amount of interest, as claimed by him.

Accordingly, the present Original Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is set aside to the extent that it denies the applicants interest on the delayed payment of admissible dues. The respondents are directed to calculate and pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.7,08,560/- for the period specified above, after verifying the date of receipt of the order dated 13.04.2011 and calculating the expiry of the six month period granted for compliance therewith. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.