IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Union Of India & Anr. - Appellantss
Versus
Manorma Devi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 12849/2019
Decided On : 03-03-2022
Interest - Ex Gratia Compensation - Circular 11.09.1998, Circular 05.11.1999 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Circular 11.09.1998, Circular 05.11.1999 - The court discussed the entitlement to interest on 'ex gratia' monetary compensation, referencing Circular 11.09.1998 and Circular 05.11.1999. The court highlighted the principle of awarding interest when there is no specific provision to deny it, citing the Supreme Court's rationale in Irrigation Deptt, Govt. of Orissa v. G.C. Roy and the observations in Pickett vs. British Rail Engineering Ltd. The court concluded that the respondent was entitled to interest for the delay caused by the petitioners in payment of ex-gratia compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the entitlement to interest on 'ex gratia' monetary compensation payable to the respondent due to her husband's death in harness. The respondent's husband was employed as a Gangman at the Northern Railway Station and died in harness on 26.02.1998. The dispute arose from the delay in payment of the compensation, leading to the respondent approaching the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to interest for the delay caused by the petitioners in payment of ex-gratia compensation, based on the principles of awarding interest when there is no specific provision to deny it.
Issues: The issues involved the entitlement to interest on 'ex gratia' monetary compensation, the delay in payment, and the application of circulars 11.09.1998 and 05.11.1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent was entitled to interest for the delay caused by the petitioners in payment of ex-gratia compensation, citing the principle of awarding interest when there is no specific provision to deny it.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the decision that the petitioners must pay interest to the respondent in accordance with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, after adjusting the amount already paid to the respondent towards interest in terms of the court's previous order.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral). - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in OANo.3371/2017.
2. The short issue involved in the writ petition is : whether the respondent is entitled to the interest on "ex gratia" monetary compensation which was, admittedly, payable to her, because of her husband dying in harness?
2.1 This is apparent, if one were to peruse the order passed on 06.12.2019, at the stage of issuance of notice in the petition:
"CM.APPL 52496/2019 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 12849/2019 & CM.APPL 52495/2019 (stay)
Notice limited only to the extent as to why interest be not granted only from the date when the demand for ex-gratia amount ofRs.5.0 lakhs was made.
List on 22.01.2020.
Subject of [sic: to] payment by the petitioners to the respondent of interest from the date when the demand of Rs.5.0 lakhs was made till the date of payment, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. "
3. Mr J.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, informs us that interest for the period indicated in the order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the court has already been paid to the respondent.
3.1 The record shows that although the respondent has been served, she has chosen not to enter appearance either in-person or through an advocate.
3.2 We have, however, heard arguments advanced by Mr. J K Singh, who appears for the petitioners and appraised the record including the impugned order.
3.3 The operative directions issued by the Tribunal, are contained in paragraph 14 of the impugned order which reads as follows :
"14. In view of the above discussion, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the prevailing GPF rate for the period starting from 11th September, 1998 when the order for payment of ex-gratia compensation came into force till the time the payment is actually made to the applicant. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."
4. The above-mentioned directions came to be passed in the background of the following facts:
4.1 The respondent's husband was employed as a Gangman at the Northern Railway Station, Patel Nagar, Delhi. The respondent's husband, however, died, as noticed above, in harness on 26.02.1998.
4.2 The record shows that pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, a circular was taken out by the Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions [hereafter referred to as "DOPPW"] on 11.09.1998, which directed payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the wards of government servants who died in harness, w.e.f. 01.01.1997. We are told that the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs w.e.f. 01.01.2006 i.e., pursuant to the recommendations made by the 6th Pay Commission.
4.3. Concededly, the petitioners i.e., Railway Board adopted the aforementioned circular issued by the DOPPW, via circular dated 05.11.1999.
4.4. It appears that the respondent, on becoming aware that she was entitled to compensation, approached the petitioner on 02.08.2013. Since there was no movement in the matter, the respondent was constrained to approach the Tribunal. This was respondent's first foray into the bastion of insensitivity shown in the matter. This action was registered as OA No. 3456/2013, and was disposed of via order dated 15.07.2014. The operative directions contained in the said order, being relevant, are extracted hereafter:
"2. In the circumstances, the present Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to give reply to the legal notice dated 2.8.2013 served upon the Divisional Railway Manager, North-Western Railway, Bikaner, the Divisional Railway Manager, North Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi and the Section Engineer (P. Way), Northern Railwa
Administratrix of the Estate of Ralph Henry Pickett Deed.) vs. British Rail Engineering Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to interest for the delay in payment of ex-gratia compensation, based on the principle of awarding interest when there is no specif....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insistence on the production of FIR and post-mortem report for ex-gratia compensation was not in line with the spirit of the scheme, and t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.