THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2004 _______NOVEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN: Dr.S.Lakshminarayana, Head USIC Faculty, Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur District. … Petitioner A n d The Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur, And another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2004 O R D E R The petitioner is the Head of the Faculty of the University Science Instrumentation Centre (USIC) in Nagarjuna University, Guntur. In this writ petition, he is claiming interest at 12% per annum from 1990 onwards upon the arrears of Rs.1,08,995-90, being his salary from 1986 to 1990 as per the higher UGC Scales, 1986. The USIC was established by the Nagarjuna University in the year 1985 with the permission of the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi. The UGC had to bear all the expenditure incurred by the USIC for the first five years including the salaries of its employees. The petitioner was appointed as the Head of the Faculty of USIC on 29.03.1985. He was subsequently sanctioned higher pay scales as per the UGC Scales of 1986. Upon such re-fixation, a sum of Rs.2,40,296-90 was due to the petitioner towards arrears; out of which the State Government’s share of Rs.1,31,301/- was paid. However, the UGC’s share of Rs.1,08,995-90 was not remitted to the petitioner. The petitioner addressed representation dated 18.11.2002 to the UGC seeking early payment of the arrears, which were stated to be long pending. The Nagarjuna University also addressed this issue in its letter dated 25.01.2001 whereby it requested the UGC to release the amounts due, including the amount payable to the petitioner towards his arrears. As the UGC remained unmoved, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of W.P.No.24428 of 2002 wherein he sought a declaration that the action of the Nagarjuna University and the UGC in not paying the arrears was illegal and sought a consequential direction to them to pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1990. The said writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage on 10.12.2002 directing the UGC to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the letter of the Nagarjuna University dated 25.01.2001 and the petitioner’s letter dated 18.11.2002 with regard to sanction of his arrears. This Court directed the UGC to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It appears that the UGC by its proceedings No. F.79-10/81(SR-III) Part File dated 24.12.2003 sanctioned payment of Rs.1,08,654/- towards the arrears of salary of the petitioner for the period 1986-1990. A copy of the said proceedings was marked to the Registrar of Nagarjuna University and also to the petitioner, though the amount sanctioned was directed to be credited to the account of the University. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the denial of interest upon his arrears which were paid after a delay of more than one decade, filed the present writ petition. In his affidavit, the petitioner pointed out that even after passing of the order in W.P.No.24428 of 2002 specifying a time limit the UGC took nearly ten months thereafter to sanction the amounts payable clearly evidencing delay on its part. He further pointed out that in his letter dated 15.01.2003 and his legal notice dated 13.11.2003, he had specifically asked for payment of interest upon the sums due. However, the UGC failed to address the issue. He accordingly prayed for a direction to the UGC to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1990 upon the arrears of Rs.1,08,995-90. In its counter-affidavit, the UGC stated that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner’s claim was of a civil nature and an alternative and effective remedy was available to him. The UGC also contested the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, stating that the petitioner had not claimed interest previously and when the same was not granted earlier, it would amount to negativing the said claim. While admitting the facts and also conceding the claim of the petitioner that he was entitled to the UGC Revised Scales of 1986 whereby arrears, quantified by the UGC at Rs.1,08,654/-, were sanctioned and paid to the University, the UGC did not even attempt to explain the delay on its part in sanctioning and disbursing the said amount. The UGC further stated that it had complied with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24428 of 2002, once again steering clear of why it delayed such implementation for nearly ten months. It was pointed out that the petitioner did not refer to payment of interest in his letter dated 18.11.2002 and his entitlement to interest on the arrears was denied. It is no doubt true that the petitioner in his letter dated 18.11.2002, did not stake a claim for interest upon the arrears. Understandably, at that time the petitioner would have been more interested in getting sanction and disbursal of the arrears. However, in his earlier writ petition, W.P.No.24428 of 2002, the petitioner sought payment of interest upon the arrears at the rate of 12% per annum. Pertinent to note, this Court did not go into the merits of the case and merely directed the UGC to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the letters of the petitioner and the University with regard to the sanction of the arrears. While enclosing a copy of the said order, the petitioner in his letter dated 15.01.2003 addressed to the UGC, again sought payment of interest upon the arrears. This request was reiterated in the legal notice dated 13.11.2003 addressed by the petitioner to the UGC. The proceedings of the UGC dated 24.12.2003 sanctioning a sum of Rs.1,08,654 towards the arrears payable to the petitioner for the period 1986-1990 are however studiously silent with regard to the aspect of interest. In such circumstances, the stand of the UGC that the petitioner failed to raise the claim for the interest earlier is not tenable. Further, the contention that such a claim would be barred by the provisions of Order-2, Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is equally without foundation as this Court in the earlier round of litigation did not negative the said claim or deal with it on merits. The entire issue was left open to the UGC to consider and to pass appropriate orders. It is relevant to note that the UGC does not deny the entitlement of the petitioner to the Revised Pay Scales, 1986 and that the amounts due are relatable to the period 1986-1990. The counter of the UGC is conspicuously silent as to the reason for the delay for the sanction and disbursal of this amount. The University also addressed this issue as long back as in January, 2001 when it brought to the notice of the UGC that the State had already paid its share of Rs.1,31,301/- towards the arrears of the petitioner’s salary and that the sum of Rs.1,08,995-90 was due in this regard from the UGC. There is no explanation from the UGC as to why it did not act upon the said communication. With regard to the contention that the petitioner’s claim is of a civil nature and therefore he should be relegated to the common law remedy available to him before the competent civil Court, it is to be noted that there are no disputed facts to be resolved in the present case and the only issue that arises is as to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim interest on the delayed payment of the sums rightfully due to him. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.DUA V/s. STATE OF HARYANA (2008) 3 SCC 44. The said case related to a claim for interest on belated payment of retirement benefits to a Government official and the High Court dismissed the writ petition relegating the officer to avail his remedies before the civil Court. The Supreme Court however took note of the fact that the officer was entitled as a matter of right to his retirement benefits and that there was a delay of four years in payment thereof. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court ought to have entered into the merits of the case based on the documentary evidence and ought to have decided the case on merits. It is no doubt true that there are no regulations in the present case which govern the grant of interest on delayed payments by the UGC. The petitioner’s claim for interest is however not based on any lenity on the part of the UGC. Admittedly, the arrears payable relate to the period 1986-1990 and were actually paid only in December, 2003. There is therefore a delay ranging between 17 to 13 years in the remittal of the said amounts. Once the petitioner was entitled to the sums aforestated, the unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the UGC in disbursing the same inevitably causes loss and harm to his interest. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in S.K.DUA observed that even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest on delayed payments relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Once the entitlement of the petitioner to the arrears is not disputed by the UGC, the payment of the same was not in the nature of a ‘bounty’ as pointed out in S.K.DUA in the context of retirement benefits. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for interest cannot be baldly rejected on technicalities. In the aforestated circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing the UGC, the second respondent, to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum upon the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner relating to the period 1986-1990 from 1990 onwards upto the date of the sanction and disbursal vide proceedings dated 24.12.2003. The said amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J _______NOVEMBER, 2009 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.635 OF 2004 _______NOVEMBER, 2009