AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Keyur Vyas, holding brief of Mr. P.K. Jani, for the Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2132 of 2004 and Mrs. Mauna Bhatt for the Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 4437 of 2004.
By these petitions, judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 8.10.2003 passed in Original Application No. 627 of 2002 has been challenged.
Learned Counsel Mr. Keyur Vyas has urged that interest was required to be awarded from the date on which voluntary retirement application was accepted. The employee retired on 16.9.1997. Whereas, learned Counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt learned Counsel has urged that no interest could be awarded in view of para 22 of the judgment of the Tribunal, where following observation has been made:
We also note that the applicant in the earlier OA had sought for specific relief of interest from 16.9.97 but no specific orders were passed on that relief. It is a settled principle of law that such relief is treated to be refused. This refusal has not been challenged.
Therefore, according to her, the learned Tribunal committed an error of law as well as on facts in directing payment of interest in para 24.
We find that the order of the Tribunal is based on confusion of facts inasmuch as in para 22, the Tribunal held that the relief of interest with effect from 16.9.1997 was earlier claimed by the employee but was refused and refusal has not been challenged, which amounts to saying that now, relief of interest could not be granted to the employee. On the other hand, in para 24, the Tribunal observed that interest will become due from 10.5.2000. Both the statements appear to be self-contradictory. Therefore, we remand these two matters back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad for taking fresh decision in the matter after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties.
In the result, both these petitions are allowed. Judgment and order dated 8.10.2003 passed in Original Application No. 627 of 2002 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad is set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad for deciding the question of interest afresh, as to whether the employee is entitled for any payment of interest and from what rate, whether simple interest or compound interest has to be paid. Rule is made absolute accordingly.