Subhash Tiwari vs State of M.P.

Sanjay Yadav, J.—Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 1,44,687/- paid to the petitioner in lieu of arrears of salary for the period from 1987 to 1995 paid in the year 2010.

Facts giving rise to the controversy, in nutshell, is that initially appointed in 1983 as ad-hoc Assistant Professor in Private College receiving grant-in-aid, by order dated 3.1.1991, the petitioner was recognized as regular Assistant Professor w.e.f. 11.2.1987. The order-dated 3.1.1991 was, however, cancelled by order-dated 3.1.1992. The petitioner was, therefore, not paid the salary from 1987 to 1990 nor was given the increment. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a petition, registered as Writ Petition No. 190/1998. The petition was decided by a common order dated 6.4.2010 and the impugned order-dated 3.1.1992 was quashed with a direction for grant of all benefits including selection grade and senior pay scale. The respondents complied with the order and amount of Rs.1,44,687/- was paid.

The petitioner thereafter alleging that he is wrongfully deprived of his rightful claim, is entitled for the interest on the arrears @ 18 per annum or the rate equivalent to as applicable for Contributory Provident Fund.

Respondents have denied the claim contending inter alia that the claim having been adjudicated in the year 2010, the respondents are not liable for interest.

Considered the rival contentions.

Evidently, in Subhash Tiwari vs State of M.P. : W.P. No. 190/1998 (supra); the action of the respondent in cancelling the order dated 31.1.1991 by order dated 3.1.1992 was found to be erroneous and the respondent-employer were found at fault, resulting in quashment of order. True it is that the order is silent about interest; however, equally true it is that it has not even denied the interest. Thus, the petitioner was wrongfully denied the salary due to him and though this wrong has been corrected in Writ Petition No. 190/1998. Had the order recognizing the petitioner as Assistant Professor since 1987 was maintained, the petitioner would have benefited and since he is deprived of the said amount; for that the claim by petitioner for interest in lieu of wrongful detaining of his rightful claim, cannot be denied. It has been held in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., -

"26. It is correct that the Act does not contain any provision for grant of interest, but on account of catena of cases of this Court that interest can still be awarded, taking recourse to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to do complete justice between the parties. We accordingly do so. This principle is based upon justice, equity and good conscience, which would certainly authorize us to grant interest, otherwise, the very purpose of awarding compensation to the Appellant would be defeated. We accordingly deem it fit to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing the complaint till it is actually paid."

Accordingly, the petition is allowed to the extent that respondents shall pay interest on the arrears from the date of order passed in Writ Petition No. 190/1998 till actual payment @ 9% per annum.

Certified copy as per rules.