Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J.

K on 18 September, 2008

Bombay High Court

Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J. K on 18 September, 2008
Bench: Anoop V.Mohta, C. L. Pangarkar
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 3492/1994

Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye,

aged 57 years, Occ. Service,

(Dy. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra

State Electricity Board- 400 KV R & S
Division, Nagpur) r/o Flat No. E-3,
Vandana, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-440 101.

.....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...

1. The Chairman,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,

Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Bandra

(East) Bombay- 400 051.

2. The Member (Administration)/

Secretary, Maharashtra State

Electricity Board, Prakashgad,

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595739/ 1

 Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J. K on 18 September, 2008

Plot No. G-9, Bandra (East)

Bombay- 400 051.

3. The Joint Secretary (Technical)

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Bandra
(East) Bombay- 400 051.

4. The Director of Personnel,

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Prakashgad, Plot No. G-9, Bandra
(East) Bombay- 400 051.

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:52:12 :::

2

5. The Chief Engineer (Extra High

Voltage Construction Zone)

Maharashtra State Electricity Board,

Administrative Building, Ramdaspeth,

Pune - 411 011.

6. The Superintending Engineer

(Extra High Voltage- Operation and

Maintenance Circle), Administrative
Building, Maharashtra State Electricity

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595739/ 2

 Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J. K on 18 September, 2008

Board, Nagpur - 440 013.

7. The Executive Engineer

(400 KV R & S. Division),
Maharashtra State Electricity
Board, 633-Mohta Apartments,

Chhaoni, Katol Road, Nagpur - 440 013.

.....RESPONDENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Arun Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R. K. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:- ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ.

Date of Reserving the Judgment:- September 16, 2008.

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment:- September 18, 2008.

J U D G M E N T (Per:- 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

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595739/ 3

 Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J. K on 18 September, 2008

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.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595739/ 4

 Yuvraj Nathuji Rodye vs Dr. J. K on 18 September, 2008

However, considering the facts and circumstances we direct the respondents to make payment of
interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the amount due and payable.

7. In view of this, we are not inclined to grant any other relief to the petitioner. In the result, the
petition is partly allowed by holding that the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on due and
payable amount at the rate of 8% per annum from the due date of payment. The payment be made
after the calculation within a period of four months from the receipt of the order. The petition is
accordingly partly allowed. However, the parties are at liberty to settle the matter also. No costs.

JUDGEig JUDGE

kahale

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1595739/ 5