' ‘ " ”zeaw/yééwwa f _I_1_\;r mp; magwm OE‘ Ivna‘DHyA FRAQEsxkggnggaBALgy‘g mm FETITIGN no . ,...HQ q 0;. 5 1990.. , "n4 l/‘M ' i Ram $ajiwan agrawal, son \of late shri Ramdas Agrawal agéd about S7 ym 10 months by ccmpation _ gestt. Dist‘c Sarguja Distt Excise _ Ambik{apqr. rlofficeriManendragarh} \ V ' gamgxwm _ very: s- - “1%“- ESPOggQNES :1.S/tate oi? Madhya Pradesh,throu’gh r - The Secxataxy,’ Separate Iévenue D$partmént, Govt. of .Madhya ?ra§esh Bhallabh Bhawazx, Bhopal (M3 .)c 2. wmm'ssio:1er, Excise Department Moti— Mahal, Gwalicr (M‘.P. ) 3. c'al‘lectgr, Sarguja (Mbikapur ) 4.'$xcoomtant/ General, Madhya Fradésh Gwalior (ME. )r ’ ‘grzrrmg mmEg ARTICLE gza (227 o3; I THE‘éégéTiigTim‘pé TiiébiA‘.‘ ' ‘ " ‘ " /s g [ C g \\‘\ HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : 'HON’BLE $HRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,J. Shri Mau‘n Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner. Shn' Bhaskar Payasi, Panel Lawyer for the State 0 R D E R (Passed on Z? .0120 10) 1. Insta'ht petm''on has been med by the petitioner for issuance of dixection to respondents for proper nxation of his pay in the appropriate pay- scale applicable nom time to time along with increment, allowances and other benefits. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction for payment of arrears of salary as may be found due upon such re- nxation along with interest @ 24% per annum. He has also prayed for issuance of command to make appropriate correction in the matter of payment G.P.F as per deduction made by the respondents. Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Excise Sub— Inspector‘on: 1.2. 1964 in the pay—scale of Rs. 120- 220 and later on, he was connrmed on 1.2.1966. The petitioner was then promoted as Excise Inspector on 31.5.1985. Though he was entitled to pay—scale of Rs.860-1330, the same was not granted which led to tiling of several representations from 1975 onwards. Further grievance is related to non-payment of increment at any stage of nxation. According to the petitioner, his service record has been good and he has not received Writ Petition {S} No.2290/2005 PETITIONER Ram Sajiwan Agrawal, Varsus RESPONDENTS State of Madhya Pmdesh and others Appearance: only reason for non— patitionsr, missing right from year 1975 and respondents did ay according to the soale of pay nor incmmc fixation of p ranted. Mar, upon revision of pay— g in the revised p fe-mation of pay NLP. ay-scale of Rs.1350 - - Revision of Pay Rules 1987. Thereafter made applicable, v>but the adVantage of these pay also not extended tohim. Applieatioil was ole 3. An Oliginal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalyur as sed of vide order dated 9.8.1994 warn a was dispo the claims within 6 weeks gran remains unsettled. y 1t is the case of the petitioner that seveml representations' were m grante him were not ted and, on aecount of w were not extended lead’ V ‘him under the Rules pen‘tion. construe iss ayments were made. ‘ prepared and p died by the respondefns, 5. 1n the mmrn W6I‘C onier dated 9. any waming nor any inquixy is pending against fxxatio respondents, to reconstruct service book of the p tin d for the reason that hich all ' 3 4Q During pendency of the petition, in him. According to the n was that his sewice b not take any stey for nts were scale, peu'tioner was entitled to —22OO as per Pay Rules of 1990 were scales revisions was ook was dv by the petitioner before the Madhya o.A. M848] 1990 whim it direction to etitioner and settle all if matter g liberty to nle anesli ' tile order of Tribunal, eiits admissible to hissenlice book was not the benents as admissible to g totaling of the instant after ade but various hen dixeCtions compliance of various nnally the service book was tied by the Tribunal nom time to time, it has been stated that attempts service book being made to ptepare of the petitioner and after the 8.1994 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.848/90, the \VJ Fixation was done and it was said scxvice book was mlally pmpared. that pctiu'oncr would be paid the arream of salary atthe earliest. It was also stated said that though the petiu'oner was dimmed to cooperate in pieparing sewic extend cooperation. Respondent No.4 has sepamtely filed its return stating that only concerned with G.P.F. amount of the payment case was foxwayd e book vide letter dated 4.1.1999, petitioner did not they are pet'm'oner and G.P.F. nnal ed by the Department vide its letter dated 1.6.1999 though the petitioner retired on 30.6.1996. His case was Rs.3,14,217[— being entire balance together with interest of unto June, 1999 was authorized vide letter of Annexure R-l dated 8.7. 1999. Thereafter the interest on delayed payment for the relevant period was worked out at Rs.9,241/— pmcessed and a sum of in accordance with G.P.F. Rules and was so authorized vide letter of Annexure R-2 dated 6.3.2000. 6. l't is admitted position that during pendency of petition, the principal amount on all the counts were made to the petitioner. However, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to payment of interest on the entire amounts which has though been paid to him, but after a great delay. A calculation\sh_e 1996 on various amounts till the date ‘ 3 et showing the interest due to the petm''oner right tram of payment along with interest i receivable by the petitioner has been tiled as Annexure A—l along with application for taking documents on rec0rd. According to petitioner’s calculation he is entitled to interest to tune of Rs.8,46,744.20/ — . This interest has been calculated by the’petitioner @ 18% P.A. 7 . in response to the calculation made by the petitioner, which relates to calculation of interest, it has been stated by the respondents that the . W petitioner has mceived all the dues and there are no arrears/outstanding payment in his account. Respondents further submits that there is no provision under any Rules with regard to the service conditions of the petitioner, for payment of interest on anears of salmy and other dues and therefore the same cannot be gamed. In 1‘ substance, the reply of the respondents is that though belatedly, entire payments of the petitioner have been settled and payment admittedly made to the petitioner, petitioner is not entitled to any further relief. . As various dues have admittedly been paid to the petitioner, the only question which remains to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments. . In order to substantiate his claim for grant of interest on delayed payments, the peu'tioner has placedrreliance on following authorities of the Supreme Court as also of the High Court : S.K., Dua Vs. state of Harvana & Another, 2008 l3) scc 44; H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Kunatalt’a Ago Industries Corpn. Ltd. 2003 [3) soc 40; Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. state of U.P. and others 2001 (9}. SCC 687; Gorakhpur University and other: Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others, 2001 [6) scc 591; R.P. Kapur Vs. \ Union of India and others, 1999 [8) soc 110; Dr. Uma Agnwal vs. State of U.P.. and another, 1999 (3) SOC 433; State of M.P. and others Vs. Joginder with Monga, 1996 (7) soc 8; state or Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 [1) SOC 4%9; Prabhakar Bakshi and others Vs. State of M.P. as others (W3. No. 2101] 1998} & Mrs. sarbjit Kaur Vs. State of Himaohal Pradesh and ors, 2009 l2) Shim LC. 136. mM 10. Whilg the petitioner has claimed payment of interest on van'ous dues paid to him belatedly, respondents have opposed the claim by stating that in absence of there being any provision in the relevant service rules; petitioner is not entitled for payment of any interest. In the. case of 8.K., Dua Vs. State of Haryana £5 Another (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, interest can be claimed by an employee under Palt-III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 8t. 21 of the Constitution. In view of the above, contention of the mspondents that in the absence of provision under rules, petitioner is not entitled to payment of interest under any circumstance, cannot be accepted. 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is home out that petitioner was not given appropriate pay-scale upon revision of pay- scale nom time to time from the year 1966 on account of the fact that the service book of the petitioner was missing. It is only at the cost of the judicial intervention that the respondents prepared the service V book of the petitioner and all the payments were made up to 1999. Though the respondents have stated in their return that petih‘oner did not cooperate, I am unable to accept this plea, as the details of service of an employee are reconied in service book which are maintained at the appropriate level, and‘if the same was missing, petin'oner cannot be faulted. The apathy and indih‘erence on the part of respondents to reconstruct service book and workout re-iixation of pay in pay-scale revised horn time to time and pay arrears thereon is writ large and there is no explanation set forth in their reply. umékw L u 4‘ . r3“ ‘< L, r W f W w \ . Petitioner remained wrongfully deprived of his pay, incmments etc. in the appmpn‘ate pay—scale and also consequent delay in payment of various mtrial dues. The Supreme Court in several decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner over and above, has repeatedly held that in such circumstances where dues have not been paid in time, employee is entitled to payment of interest thereupon. . However, from the pleadings made in the petition, it is revealed that though pelitioner was aggrieved on account of non-iixation of pay in the appropriate pay-scale, he himself approached the Court of Law for '1 redressal of his grievances for the hrst lime in the year 1990. Further l petitioner has calculated interest @ 18% P.A. In the facts and V circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court ends ofjustice would be served if the petitioner is granted interest on the delayed payments h‘om the date of his hrst approach to the Tribunal by hling [x ‘ O.A. No.848/ 1990 till the date of actual payment at a simple interest @ 10% per annum. l therefore, direct the respondents to make payment of interest to the petitioner at a simple interest @ 10% per annum in respect of the period ham the date of hling of O.A. No.848] 90 till the date of actual payment. 3 The paymept of interest shall be made to the petitioner expeditiously with an outer limit of 4'months nom the date of receipt of copy of this 3 , order by the Secretary of Department of Revenue, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. .Petiu'on is allowed to the extent indicated above with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)i' ore/4dr V H1 Manindra Mohan Shrivastava t l m, ‘ \ {r Sdl- Sinha .