AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the respondents to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment of arrears of pay and allowances amounting to Rs.24,19,680/- for the period from 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020.
The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 24.12.2011. However, FIR No.201 dated 29.11.2015 under Section 21 & 25 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Ludhiana, was registered against the petitioner and Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh. Upon registration of criminal case, the petitioner and Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were dismissed from service by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, vide order dated 02.12.2015. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order dated 02.12.2015 was also rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, vide order dated 26.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP-14987-2017, challenging the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order. However, during the pendency of said writ petition, the petitioner as well as Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh were acquitted of the charges leveled against them by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, vide judgment dated 10.10.2019. Subsequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. CWP-14987-2017 as well as the writ petition filed by his co-accused, namely, Senior Constable Sukhwinder Singh i.e. CWP-14213-2017, were disposed of by a common order dated 12.03.2020. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:
"The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Jalandhar, to reconsider and pass a fresh order in view of the fact that petitioner has been acquitted and also examine as to whether Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India could be invoked in the present case.
It is also directed that the Competent Authority shall pass a fresh order dehors the earlier order of punishment dated 02.12.2015 and orders in the appeal and revision dated 26.02.2015 and 21.09.2016, respectively.
It is further directed that in case on re-consideration, the petitioner is decided to be taken back in job, the consequential orders and consequential benefits be released within two months from the date of passing of order. The Competent Authority is directed to take a decision within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."
In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the competent authority considered the case of the petitioner and reinstated him with all consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1/T). Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was found entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020 amounting to Rs.24,19,680/-. However, after making deductions a net amount of Rs.20,54,357/- was credited to the bank account of the petitioner. Since no interest was paid on the said amount of arrears, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 01.01.2021 upon the respondents claiming interest, but the said claim was rejected by respondent No.3, vide letter dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure P-3/T). Hence, the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had been reinstated with all consequential benefits and the respondents had themselves determined and released the arrears of pay and allowances payable to him, the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period during which the amount remained unpaid. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon the judgments of this Court in Jarnail Singh & others Vs. The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab Soil Conservation Department, Chandigarh & others, 1989 (2) RSJ 242 and J.S. Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (1) SCT 782.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the arrears of pay and allowances, particularly when the respondents have already complied with the directions issued by this Court and have released all consequential benefits. It is further submitted that there was no deliberate or intentional withholding of the amount on the part of the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the order dated 12.03.2020 passed by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits, vide order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure P-1/T), and the respondents themselves determined and released the amount of arrears payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.24,19,680/-. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of arrears.
In the present case, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 02.12.2015 by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The said action was subsequently reconsidered by the competent authority in view of the petitioner's acquittal in the criminal case. Upon such reconsideration, the petitioner was reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits. The respondents, therefore, accepted that the petitioner was entitled to the monetary benefits attached to the intervening period. Once the petitioner was held entitled to consequential monetary benefits, denial of interest merely on the ground that the principal amount had subsequently been paid would not be justified.
It is well settled that where an employee is deprived of the use of an amount which was legitimately due and payable to him, the award of interest is an appropriate mode of compensating him for such deprivation. Interest compensates the person who has been kept out of the use of his money for a period during which he was otherwise entitled to it. In Jarnail Singh and J.S. Cheema cases (supra), this Court observed that where the State retains the money belonging to an employee without justification, the employee is entitled to be compensated by way of interest for the period of such retention. The relevant paragraph in J.S. Cheema case (supra) is reproduced as under: -
"The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it."
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of arrears of pay and allowances of Rs.24,19,680/-, for the period from 02.12.2015 to 03.11.2020.
The respondents are directed to calculate and release the amount of interest to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.