Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. Sistani, Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ.
Dalbir Singh Sohi – Appellant
Versus
General Manager and Another – Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 670 of 2018
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Geetanjali Mohan, Adv., Rajat Arora, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that payment of interest must attend delay in payment of money due, unless there is good reason for the contrary.
Headnote:
Interest - Employment Dispute - Union of India vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) & Ors., (1994) 2 SCC 240 - The court allowed the appeal and granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1992 till the date of payment on the monies owed, in accordance with the legal principle that payment of interest must attend delay in payment of money due, unless there is good reason for the contrary.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order dismissing him from service and subsequent appellate and review orders. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to accept the appellant's resignation from the date he resigned and to disburse any entitled benefits within two weeks. The appellant became entitled to gratuity, leave encashment, and some component of provident fund as a result of the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in disbursal of legitimate dues to the appellant was a result of needless and malicious proceedings, and that the appellant should be granted interest for the delayed payments.
Issues: The issues included the treatment of the appellant by the bank, the delay in disbursal of the appellant's legitimate dues, and the entitlement to interest for the delayed payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in payment of money due must be attended with payment of interest, unless there is good reason for the contrary, and granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1992 till the date of payment on the monies owed.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 1992 till the date of payment on the monies owed was granted.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sistani, J.
The decision of the learned Single Judge in an application for modification of order, filed post the pronouncement of the judgment on 17.08.2018, wherein interest on leave encashment and gratuity was declined, has led to filing of the present appeal.
2. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this court seeking quashing of order dated 07.02.2000 read with corrigendum dated 06.06.2000, whereby the appellant stood dismissed from service, as well as of appellate order dated 18.08.2000 and review order dated 15.06.2002 made by respondent No. 1.
3. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to accept the resignation of the appellant from the date he resigned i.e. 05.02.1992. In addition, the learned Single Judge was further pleased to direct respondent No.2/bank that should the appellant be entitled to any benefits consequent to the judgment, the same be disbursed within a period of two weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
4. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that taking into consideration the harassment which the appellant had to go through on account of the issuance of three charge-sheets, the learned Single Judge was pleased to award costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the respondents.
5. Consequent to the judgment, which has attained finality as far as the bank is concerned, the appellant became entitled to gratuity, leave encashment and some component of provident fund. Ms. Mohan submits that since the amount had accrued to him as far back as in the year 1992 and the same was withheld by respondent No.2/bank illegally, which is apparent from the observations of the learned Single Judge, in all fairness the appellant should be entitled to interest.
6. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel for the respondents however submits that the learned Single Judge in his wisdom had awarded heavy costs of Rs.50,000/- which would take care of the harassment, if any, meted-out to the petitioner and thus the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to grant any interest. Mr. Arora also submits that no prayer for interest was made in the writ petition.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties. We find force in the submissions made by Ms. Mohan. Learned Single Judge in paras 32, 33 and 36 of judgment dated 17.08.2018 observes as under:-
"32. To this Court, the manner in which the Bank has treated the petitioner is appalling, to say the least. The petitioner has obviously been hounded. Once the disciplinary authority had, vide order dated 7th October,1993, exonerated the petitioner of the charge of unauthorized absence after 6 th July,1991, there could be no question of the same charge, forming subject matter of a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. It is also seen, from the order dated 7th October,1993, that the petitioner's resignation has been accepted as a matter of record. In fact, the said order states that "since he has resigned there is no question of his further joining his duties." This is, ex facie, contrary to the observation, in the inquiry report dated 28th November, 2001 (supra), that the petitioner continued to be the employee of the Bank and was, therefore, required to submit his property returns.
33. That the entire exercise of issuance of the third chargesheet, as well as all proceedings following thereupon, was tainted by malice in law as well as on facts, and targeted at removing the petitioner from the establishment of the Bank, any which way, is also apparent from the summary nature of the inquiry report, dated 28th January,2001, as well as the total non-application of mind, by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority, to the petitioner's repeated references to the earlier proceedings against him, which had culminated in his exoneration.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
36. Should the petitioner be entitled to any benefits consequent to this judgment, they shall be di
