SUMANLAL P SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) His Lordship after noting that the State Govt. has agreed to promote the petitioner as prayed for further observed In light of the above statement therefore the only question which subsists is whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount which has been withheld at the rate of 15% at which he has claimed by amending the relief clause of the present petition on 1/10/1982.

(2.) The Supreme Court in KRISHNA PRASAD SINHA V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. (1982) 2 SCC 497 was concerned with the State Governments inordinate delay in complying with the High Courts directions for payment of arrears of salary subsistence allowance and pension due for the period during which the Government servant was out of service pursuant to the order of dismissal which was ultimately quashed and set aside and as to what should be appropriate direction in such a situation. The Court while directing the payment to be made on account of salary etc. observed as under: "Though the order for payment in favour of the petitioner was made about four years and it is surprising that the payment due to the petitioner in respect of salary and subsistance allowance has not yet been made by the State Government. The salary due is for almost four years and the subsistance allowance is also payable for a further period of five years and it is difficult to understand how the State Government could so callous as not to make this payment to the petitioner even though he was entitled to the same under the order made by the High Court. We would therefore direct the State Government to make payment of the amount of salary and subsistance allowance as per the order of the High Court peremptorily within three weeks from today together with interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) It is in view of this settled legal position that I have to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to payment of interest and if so at what rate. It should be recalled that the Division Bench of this Court comprising of J. B. Mehta and T. U. Mehta JJ. had issued a writ of mandamus by its order of 6-5-1976 declaring the petitioner to be considered in Class I service of the Bombay Education Service Administration Branch as on 1-11-1956 if he was not so notionally promoted by the State Government within reasonable time of the issu- ance of the writ and to revise the seniority and grant notional promotions accordingly and to pay the difference of salary etc. as may be due and payable to him in light of the various posts to which he would be notionally promoted and posted The Division Bench had granted time upto 31/07/1976 to both the State Governments to carry out the writ of mandamus. In other words both the State Governments were granted time of more than two months. It is pertinent to recall the observation which the Division Bench had made while opening its judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 164174. The observation reads as under: