Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13442 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Kishor Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nand Kishor Mishra,Shilpa Ahuja Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for respondents.
2. The only relief sought in present writ petition is that respondents be directed to pay interest on delayed payment of arrears of salary to petitioner.
3. When questioned, whether there is any provision for payment of interest of arrears of salary, learned counsel for petitioner could not place any such provision. It appears that arrears of salary was delayed since salary was revised in 2012 and thereafter payment was made.
4. In Union of India and others Vs. Dr. J.K. Goel 1985 Supp. (3) SCC 161 Court held that interest on arrears of salary is not payable unless there is provision providing for payment of such interest. It further held that in case there are special equity showing that payment of arrears of salary was deliberately denied and the incumbent was put to loss on account of some bias or mala fide, in such cases, interest may be allowed. Relevant extract is reproduced as under:
"In these circumstances we have to examine whether the order of the Tribunal granting interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent for the period January 1986 to March 1992 can be upheld. In the first place, there is no provision of law under which such interest can be granted. Learned advocate for the respondent, however, has contended before us that on equitable considerations, the Tribunal has granted interest @ 12% per annum to the respondent and we need not interfere with discretion exercised by the Tribunal in this regard. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we cannot accept the submission made by learned advocate for the respondent. Before any interest can be granted on equitable considerations, it is necessary that the facts of the case should be examined to ascertain whether there are they special equities which would justify the grant of such interest although there is no provision in law for such grant."
5. Following Dr. J.K. Goel (supra) a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Sudhir Agarwal, J.) was also a Member in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 4370 of 2003 (Dr. Raj Kishore Singh Vs. Director of Education (Higher), U.P. and others) decided on 30.3.2006 and another Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.69719 of 2006 (Harnand Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 02.05.2014, has taken the same view.
6. Moreover, earlier also petitioner came to this Court seeking same relief in Writ Petition No. 49372 of 2017 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.10.2017 directing respondent no. 4 to pass a reasoned order on representation to be made by petitioner, whereafter petitioner filed representation dated 16.05.2018. However, it is not clear whether any order has been passed by respondent no. 4 on petitioner's aforesaid representation or not since none has been challenged and nothing has been said in this regard. In any case, representation having been made just 14 days back i.e. on 16.05.2018 and even otherwise, the present writ petition is premature.
7. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 AK