JUDGMENT (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)

1. The petitioner who was in service of respondent no. 5 has filed the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed basically for appropriate order or directions to pay Rs. 3,33,518/- being the penal interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the amount of delayed payment of arrears of pay which were due and payable in the year 1989 but were paid in September-1994. There is no dispute that the Executive Engineer of the concerned respondent by letter dated 18.08.1994 informed the petitioner that they have drawn the pay fixation arrears with effect from 01.08.1975 to 30.11.1993 for 20 years and thereby directed the Accounts Officer of the respondents at Nagpur to make arrangements for the said payment. The petitioner accordingly received the payment. However, through proper channel made representation to grant compensation towards interest including for mental torture for 20 years. There is no dispute about the delayed payment as it was withheld for insufficient reasons. There is no material justification to take such time for fixing arrears of the petitioner. On this undisputed position, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the respondent-Board that no interest is payable without any specific provisions in the service conditions. The late decision taken by the respondents-Officers based on the entries in the Service Book just cannot be the reason to withheld the payment to the employees who admittedly worked at the relevant time. The fact remains that there was delay in making payment of salary and other benefits with or without intention, is immaterial. In our view, in view of the admitted position on record that the payment was not made on due dates according to service conditions, there is no disputed question of facts involved.

2. The employees cannot be allowed to suffer because of inaction on the part of the employer for no fault of the employees. The employee is definitely entitled to get the payment as per the service conditions on due dates and/or in a given case within reasonable time. The employees, had the payment received within time and/or on due dates, could have utilised the same for various purposes.

3. We are exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, though Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be strictly applicable but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as the respondents cannot absolve them of the contractual liability of making due payment on due dates, we are inclined to hold that in such cases, the respondents need to pay reasonable interest on the due amounts.

4. Before any interest can be granted on equitable consideration, it is necessary that the facts of the case should be examined to ascertain whether there are any special equities which would justify the grant of such interest although there is no provision in law for such grant.. [Union of India and others ..vs.. Dr. J. K. Goel; 1995 Suppl (3) Supreme Court Cases 161]. Therefore, the Court can consider the facts and circumstances of each case while passing or granting interest on the due and payable amount even in the employer-employee relationship, basically even for want of service conditions.

5. The submission that the writ petition is not the remedy, is unacceptable. This Court has admitted the writ petition in the year 1996 and it is pending since then. The communication of pay fixation is of dated 18.08.1994. The petition is dated 12.11.1994. The age of the petitioner is now 70 years. We are restricting the relief only on the point of grant of interest on the undisputed facts on record. Therefore, we are inclined to consider the case of the petitioner on that limited ground only.

6. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 16% per annum, which according to us is a quite unreasonable. However, considering the facts and circumstances we direct the respondents to m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document