IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12228 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.818/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, NEW DELHI. 3. THKE PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, 704, SEWA BHAWAN,R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: ------------- K.S.SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, RETD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION, BEACH EROSION DIRECTORATE, KOCHI,RESIDING AT SREENIKETAN KARUTHIDATH MANA,P.O.MULAKULAM NORTH (VIA),PIRAVOM ERNAKULAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Writ Petition (C) No.12228 of 2008-S -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in OA No.818/06. The respondent is the applicant. The leave encashment benefit of Rs.1,93,242/- payable to the applicant was paid only after a delay of 15 months. The amount due under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) which came to Rs.64,296/- was also paid to him only after a delay of 15 months. The applicant moved the CAT claiming interest for the said two amounts @ 9%. In the OA, claims were raised in relation to other amounts also, but the above two claims alone were pressed at the time of hearing. Ext.P1 is the OA filed by the respondent. The writ petitioners resisted the application by filing Ext.P2 reply statement. The tribunal after hearing both sides, allowed the OA by Ext.P3 order, directing payment of interest @ 9% for the above said two amounts for a period of one year. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext.P3. WPC 12228/08 2 2. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the contentions of the petitioners dealt with by the CAT in para 4 of Ext.P3 order. The said paragraph is quoted below for convenient reference : “Counsel for the respondents submitted that the above two heads of payments do not fall within the term of pensionary benefits as per the DOPT instructions No.38/64/P & PW(F) dated 5th October, 1999 which reads as under : (f) In the matter of delayed payment of leave encashment, the Department of Personnel and Training in their note, dated 2.8.1999 has clarified that there is no provision under CCS (Leave) Rules for payment of interest or for fixing responsibility. Moreover, encashment of leave is a benefit granted under the leave rules and not a pensionary benefit. (g) In the matter of CGEGIS, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, in their UO No.709/E.V/99 dated 6.8.1999 has clarified that payment under CGEGIS cannot be termed as terminal benefit. As payments under this scheme are made in accordance with the Table of Benefit which takes into account interest upto the date of cessation of service, no interest is payable on account of delayed payments under the scheme. They have also clarified that CGEGIS payment cannot be withheld and no Government dues can be recovered from the accumulation except the amount claimed by the financial institution as due from the employee on account of loans taken WPC 12228/08 3 for house building purpose. And there is no provision for interest on delayed payment on the above items.” A reading of the above paragraph would show that the petitioners herein resisted the claim for interest, contending that there was no provision for payment of interest for the above amounts. Those amounts were not treated as part of pensionary benefits. So the Rules do not provide for payment of interest. The tribunal, after referring to the facts of the case, found that the delay from the part of the writ petitioners to pay the amounts was unjustified. The applicant was in, no way, responsible for the delay. So the writ petitioners were directed to pay interest. The tribunal also relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Uma Agrawal v. State of UP (1999) 3 SCC 438), Vijay.L.Mehrotra v. State of UP (2001) 9 SCC 687), Bal Kishore Mody v. Arun Kumar Singh (2001) 10 SCC 174) and Union of India v. Justice S.S.Sandhawalia (1994) 2 SCC 240), in support of the view taken by it. If a person bound to pay some amount to another, without any justifiable reason withholds the payment, then the former is bound to pay interest to the latter. This principle is applicable to every one. In view of the provisions of the WPC 12228/08 4 Administrative Tribunals Act, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred in relation to service matters concerning Central Government employees. The CAT is exercising the powers of the civil court also to adjudicate the civil dispute regarding the right to get interest for the period the amounts were withheld. So we notice that the decision of the CAT is within jurisdiction. We also notice that the view taken by the CAT on the facts of the case is definitely a plausible view with which this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the claim of the Government servant for interest for delayed payment is supported by the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order Ext.P3. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the tribunal. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE 10.04.2008 P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE sta WPC 12228/08 5