Som Nath vs Accountant General and Others

The following two reliefs have been claimed by the petitioner in this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, namely:

For issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to settle the pension claim of the petitioner and the reduction made in his monthly

pension.

Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% per month on commutated pension of Rs. 24543/ which he has

received as commuted pension from the respondents.

In so far as the first relief is concerned, it is worthwhile to mention that the petitioner has received the amount of Rs. 24543/ as commuted

pension and that he has been receiving monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 271/ per month. The petitioner's only grievance is that he should be paid

monthly pension of Rs.406/ per month. This grievance however is without any basis because the petitioner has not been able to support the

allegation of reduction of pension on any tangible ground whatsoever. There is a bald assertion in the petition about the reduction of the pension

amount but is not supported by any facts or figures nor has the petitioner quoted any rules and regulations to allege and establish that infact what he

has been receiving is lesser than what is due to him.

In so far as the second relief is concerned, the admitted case of the petitioner is that he has received Rs. 24543/towards the commutation of his

pension. His grievance however is that this amount was due to him much before it was actually received by him and that because of the delay in his

actual payment the respondents have become liable to compensate him by paying interest at the rate of 18% per month on the amount from the

date it became due uptill the date it was actually payable to him. I am not commenting upon the merits of the controversy nor I be taken to express

any opinion as to whether the respondents were at all liable to pay interest on the belated payment or not.

This petition is being dismissed even in respect of the second relief, only on the ground that for claiming an ascertained sum of money, viz the

payment of interest, the petitioner has an alternative and equally efficacious remedy of approaching a civil court by filing a regular suit. Invoking the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for such relief as payment of interest alone on a principal sum already

received by a party is neither permissible under law nor warranted nor desirable. This court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction normally

deals with only those cases where a party alleges violation or infringement of its fundamental, legal or other right and seeks its enforcement.

Where a party alleges violation or infringement of his fundamental, legal or other right and approaches this court for its enforcement and/or for

seeking other ancillary or belated reliefs. The court while entertaining such a petition examines the complaint/grievance of the party and if it comes

to the conclusion that anyone of the aforesaid rights has infact been violted or infringed, it grants the relief to the party by issuance of one of the

several writs so that the right is properly enforced. In some cases while granting such a relief, which may be termed as the main relief, the court also

grants additional reliefs which may be directly or indirectly connected with the main relief or may arise out of it. Take for instance a case where a

party complains of his illegal detention. The court while quashing the detention by holding it illegal and ordering the release of the detenue can in a

given situation also direct the detaining authority to compensate the detenue for having illegally detained him.

If, however, a party approaches this court, not for enforcing its fundamental or other legal rights but to claim an ascertained, specified and exact

sum of money on the ground that it is due to it from the respondent by way of compensation because of belated payment of the principal sum, this

court does not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. These are matters which are squarely covered by and fall within the scope, ambit and purview

of normal ordinary civil proceedings in civil courts under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure or other related civil enactments. Remedies thus

are available to such a party to approach a civil court for recovery of the ascertained sum of money and obtain a decree for payment. The

contention that the disposal of civil suits in a civil court is likely to take long time and therefore, petition under Article 226 to entertain is not a

ground to insist on the party availing of the normal ordinary civil remedy. If this court starts entertaining petitions under article 226 which relate to

the grant of reliefs confined to recoveries of money, (which are ascertained specified sums) the concept of the invoking of extraordinary jurisdiction

will not only diluted but will also be abused rather misused at the cost of other deserving persons who are in need, help and aid of this court for the

enforcement of their fundamental rights or other legal or constitutional rights. In fact it must be borne in mind that such persons do not have

alternative remedy available to them, particularly when civil courts are not clothed nor equipped with proper jurisdiction or power to deal with such

cases and to provide the relief which the party desires or which alone can help and aid the party to come out of its difficult position. High

prerogative writs is the exclusive domain of superior courts, namely the High Courts and the Supreme Courts and this concept cannot be diluted by

awarding such reliefs to parties which may amount to, in effect and substance passing decrees for recovery of money, either by way of a principal

sum or as interest thereon, jointly or independent of each other. Of late this tendency has developed in litigants in approaching this court for these

reliefs and I must say that this court must take all steps to discourage the tendency so that it involves itself more in the task of examining the basic

legal questions relating to infringement and violation of basic rights of the persons approaching it and/or providing relief and succor to them. Here is

a claimant who approaches this court by invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for claiming a relief which is basically commercial in nature and

has northing to do with the deprivation of his basic rights as such and there, in a nearby corner are people waiting in anguish, despair, hardship and

agony seeking to enforce their basic fundamental rights. Should this court not draw a distinction between these two contending groups of relief

seekers and shut out ones indulging in pure commercial activities (because they have alternative remedy of approaching a civil court) and devote its

time to providing relief to those who are seeking to enforce their basic rights touching life, liberty and freedom etc;

The mere fact that the disposal of civil suit is likely to take long time and that therefore this court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction is

also not a ground to entertain such petition as that would amount not only to defeating the very basic fabric of system of civil jurisprudence, it may

also frustrate the working of the civil courts and the tasks which they are assigned to deal with, namely of entertaining and disposing of ordinary

civil litigation.

One more aspect which cannot be lost sight of is the existence of disputed questions of fact when such like petitions are filed in this court. Writ

application are normally heard and disposed of on the basis of admitted facts between the parties because, it is only in exceptional and rarest of the

rare cases that an occasion may arise where this court may in Writ applications have to take evidence to ascertain a fact or to establish a point. On

the other hand in matters like recovery of money, the contentions of the claimants are most likely in a vast majority of cases to be controverted by

the respondents and such a situation gives rise to disputed questions of fact which form the subject matter of issues for trial in the proceedings.

Yet, another reason which may impel this court normally and generally to decline to entertain such like petitions is the fact that civil suits, as and

when filed in civil courts do attract the levy of requisite appropriate court fee which goes to State exchequer. It is a point worth consideration as to

whether a party can be allowed to save the court fee by taking recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court when the normal ordinary

remedy of civil suits is available to it. I can only ponder over the subject without giving any positive or definite opinion on it at this stage because the

question does not require my serious consideration.

For what has been stated above, I am convinced that the petitioner does not deserve a relief of the grant of any writ for receiving interest as

claimed by him and he be best left to avail of the alternative remedies, which may be available to him under law in the light of the above discussion.

The petition is accordingly dismissed along with the connected C.M.P.'s.