IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1932 of 2010(S) ---------------------------------- OA.705/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-110 0O1. 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,KERALA CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,TRIVANDRUM-695 033. BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- K.SASISHEKARAN NAIR, S/O.G.KRISHNAP PILLAI,AGED 60 YEARS,RETIRED SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT RMS TV DIVISION,TRIVANDRUM-36, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VILAS,OPP.MALAYINKIL.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON 01/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.1932 of 2010-S. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Gopinathan, J. The respondent in the writ petition was working as a Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram North Division and was retired on superannuation on 29.2.2008. Though he had earned leave at his credit to be encashed, the writ petitioners didn’t pay his leave salary. Repeated representations yielded no result. Hence the respondent filed OA.No.705/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench against the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners took a defence that there was supervisory laches on the side of the respondent and such supervisory laches had occasioned to post one V.S.Satheeshachandra Kumar, who had bad antecedents, as Treasurer No.1 at Thiruvananthapuram GPO and that the WP(C).No.1932 of 2010-S. -: 2 :- supervisory laches also had facilitated Sri.Satheeshachandra Kumar to commit breech of trust of more than rupees fourteen lakhs and in that circumstance disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent and charge was framed. So, the respondent was not entitled to the leave salary. 2. Pending the proceedings before the Tribunal below, the leave salary was sanctioned by order dated 2.1.2009, copy of which was produced as Annexure-R1 and due amount was paid. The Tribunal below found that the writ petitioners were not justified in withholding the leave salary and that the failure to take a decision at the right time caused delay of 11 months in payment of the leave salary to the respondent. Placing reliance to the rulings in Vijay L.Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2000 SC 3513) and State of Kerala Vs. Antony (1994(2) KLT 314), by Ext.P5 order dated 5.10.2009 the petitioners were WP(C).No.1932 of 2010-S. -: 3 :- directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the delayed payment ie., from 1.3.2008 to 1.1.2009. Assailing the above order, this writ petition was filed. 3. Though the writ petitioners had advanced a case that since the disciplinary proceedings were in progress, the respondent is not entitled to get the leave salary, the petitioners themselves had given a go by to that contention and the leave salary was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal below. So, we find that the conclusion arrived by the tribunal below that there was delay in disbursing the leave salary and that it was only because of the failure to take appropriate decision at the appropriate time is correct. The Tribunal below found the claim of interest @ 18% unrealistic and granted interest at the rate of 9% basing upon the precedents mentioned earlier. We find that it is no way arbitrary or illegal or by error of jurisdiction so as to be WP(C).No.1932 of 2010-S. -: 4 :- rectified in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to realize the loss from the persons responsible for the delay. No costs. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (Judge) P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-