IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 112 of 2008 Date of Decision : February 10, 2011 Dr. Harbhajan Singh ….Appellant Versus Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Puri, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 2 and 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 7.1.2008 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that a senior employee, like the appellant, working in the same cadre discharging similar duties cannot be given lesser pay than his junior unless there are some cogent reasons for such a course of action. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 27.7.1998 (P.9) adversely affecting the petitioner-appellant was set aside. According to the aforesaid order, the representation filed by the petitioner-appellant dated 4.2.1997 was rejected in which claim was L.P.A. No. 112 of 2008 -2- made for stepping up his pay equivalent to his junior Jasbir Singh, who was granted selection grade as Private Secretary. It has come on record that the petitioner-appellant had retired on 31.5.1991 and the writ petition was filed by him on 17.12.2001. The writ petition having been allowed, he has approached the Letters Patent Bench with a limited prayer for grant of interest on the delayed payment of arrears of pay and pension. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that the claim of interest made by the petitioner-appellant cannot be accepted because it is conceded as a fact that selection grade to Superintendents was granted on 23.6.1989 w.e.f. 7.7.1976. In that regard he made a request to the University-authorities on 25.2.1991 (P.3), which was repeated on 14.7.1995 (P.4), 17.7.1996 (P.5), 16.6.1997 (P.6), 12.10.1997 and 26.6.1998 (P.8). However, his claim was rejected on 27.7.1998. Eventually, a legal notice through his counsel was sent by the petitioner-appellant on 5.2.2000 (P.13) followed by another representation on 5.3.2001 (P.14). The writ petition was filed in December 2001, which has been now allowed on 7.1.2008 and no interest has been awarded. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant has argued that in cases where there is delay in making payment of retiral benefits, interest is ordinarily awarded and the petitioner-appellant is entitled to the award of interest. According to learned counsel, the petitioner-appellant has been paid arrears of salary L.P.A. No. 112 of 2008 -3- from 23.6.1989 to 31.5.1991 amounting to Rs.20,969/- and arrears of pension from 1.6.1991 to 31.7.2008 amounting to Rs.1,26,197/-. The aforesaid payment has been made in pursuance of direction issued by the learned Single Judge. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid payment was liable to be made in 1989 when the decision was taken by the Syndicate (P.1). The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant have been opposed by the counsel for the respondent, who had argued that the petitioner-appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of any interest because the delay is on the part of the petitioner-appellant who had resorted to the method of making representation after representation. There is considerable delay in approaching this Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner- appellant has retired on 31.5.1991 and the writ petition was filed in December 2001 after more than ten years. Therefore, no interest is payable to the petitioner-appellant. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner-appellant for interest is devoid of any merit because if there was any error in fixation of his salary on account of refusal to grant the benefit of selection grade in the year 1989, then he should have approached the Court without any delay. It has come on record that the benefit of selection grade as Superintendent might have been admissible to him as person junior to him was granted the aforesaid benefit in pursuance of decision of the Syndicate dated L.P.A. No. 112 of 2008 -4- 23.6.1989 (P.1). However, it was not clear whether his case would be covered because he has served as Superintendent in Panjab University and was taken to respondent-Guru Nanak Dev University as Assistant Registrar on 23.4.1973. In para 2 of the written statement filed by Deputy Controller (Local Audit) of the respondent-University, it has been pointed out that the Syndicate while sanctioning selection grade to the petitioner-appellant had also decided that before implementation of the decision regarding grant of selection grade to 20% of the posts, the Vice Chancellor may have to see that any Assistant Registrar, who had been promoted/appointed before 7.7.2006 is not adversely affected. As per the decision of the Syndicate, selection grade was given to Superintendents and Personal Assistants, which was approved by the Audit. However, no action was taken by the Vice-Chancellor because no anomaly was found in the pay of Assistant Registrar nor any such anomaly was pointed out by the petitioner-appellant at that time. It was not to become the basis for the Vice Chancellor to act because the petitioner-appellant was promoted as Assistant Registrar on 23.4.1973. However, the Vice Chancellor on 10.4.1996 refixed the pay of the petitioner-appellant w.e.f. 22.11.1976 at par with his immediate senior Assistant Registrar Jasbir Singh, who was promoted as such on that date. After fixation of pay, the matter was put up before the audit, which raised objection. Accordingly, the Audit observed that there was no anomaly regarding the pay fixation of the petitioner-appellant. The issue was vacillating in nature and there was no clear answer as the L.P.A. No. 112 of 2008 -5- resolution dated 23.6.1989 passed by the Syndicate granted the benefit of selection grade w.e.f. 7.7.1976 confining it to eligible Superintendent to the extent of 20% of the posts. The petitioner-appellant was already promoted as Assistant Registrar w.e.f. 23.4.1973 and the respondent eventually decided in favour of the petitioner-appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was a case of any intentional delay because the benefits emerging from the resolution of the Syndicate dated 23.6.1989 was not clearly stipulated. Moreover, the petitioner-appellant also kept in making representations for a period of over ten years and approached this Court only in December 2001. Therefore, no case for grant of interest is made out and the judgment of the Full Bench rendered in the case of R.S. Randhawa V. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) RSJ 318 would not apply because interest would be awarded only in cases where there is no justifiable reason for the delay. As stated above, the respondent were not unjustified in sorting out the right of the petitioner-appellant and the petitioner-appellant is also responsible for delay and latches. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 10, 2011 JUDGE satish