BHALCHANDRA CHINTAMAN GADGIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a retired Judge of this Court seeking directions to the respondents to pay interest at 18 percent on delayed payment of cash equivalent of leave salary. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India, respondent No. 2 is the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 3 is the Accountant General Maharashtra-I, Bombay, and respondents No. 4 and 5 are the Prothonotary and Senior Master and Registrar, respectively, of this Court.

(2.) THESE petitioner retired as a Judge of this Court on 2nd November, 1985. On the date of retirement, he had to his credit leave with full allowances-4 months and one day (121 days) and leave with half allowance - 2 years, 2 months and one day. According to the petitioner, under Rule 20b of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955, he was entitled to cash equivalent of leave salary in respect of the period of earned leave at his credit on the date of his retirement, subject to a maximum of 180 days. The petitioner stated that the Supreme Court, in several judgments, has clearly interpreted the said rule in its application to the Judges of the High Court and, therefore, there could not be any ambiguity about the matter. In spite of the clear position, by letter dated 4th July, 1986 i. e. , after about seven months of the date of retirement of the petitioner, he received a letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Law and Judiciary Department, informing the petitioner that according to the letter dated 19th April, 1984 from the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs, New Delhi, the petitioner is eligible to encase his leave of 4 months and one day. Thereafter, on 14th August, 1986 the petitioner received a cheque for Rs. 25,611. 60 towards encashment of leave of four months and one day (121 days ). The petitioner pointed out to the State Government that the sanction for encashment of only 121 days was improper and incorrect and be was entitled to encashment of leave upto 180 days. Ultimately, by letter dated 9th May, 1988, the State Government informed the petitioner that the question of implementing the Supreme Court judgment has been taken up with the Union of India and necessary decision would be taken up on conclusion of the consultation and the petitioner would be informed in the matter as soon as the final replay is received from the Government of India. After waiting for a reasonable time, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 24th October, 1989 to the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, again reminding the authorities and demanding proper payment. The petitioner received a reply intimating that information about leave was being called from the Pay and Accounts Office and the decision and appropriate orders would-be issued after the information is received. Ultimately, by order dated 11th December, 1989 the claim of the petitioner for encashment of leave salary for a total of 180 days was accepted and it was ordered that after deducting the amount already paid, the balance should be paid to the petitioner. The said communication was not sent to the petitioner, but it was sent to the Prothonatary and Senior Master of this Court. The office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master also did not care to inform the petitioner, but after a long delay, a bill was sent to the petitioner for his signature under a forwarding letter dated 27th July, 1990. The petitioner returned the said bill duly signed to the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court and it was received by the Prothonotary on 6th August, 1990. Ultimately, a cheque for Rs. 12,488/- towards encashment of leave for 59 days was credited to the account of the petitioner on 23rd August, 1990. Thus, the petitioner got the encashment of leave for 59 days after nearly five years from the date of his retirement. The petitioner has averred that the aforesaid facts clearly show that the respondents are guilty of culpable negligence in the discharge of their duty, viz, payment of terminal benefits to him. On these basis, the petitioner, as stated earlier, has claimed interest on delayed payment.

(3.) AFFIDAVIT of Section Officer, Law and Judiciary Department, has been filed in reply to the petition on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. So far as the dates and other factual aspect of the matter are concerned, not only there is no dispute, but in fact the same is accepted in the affidavit and apart from the chronological statement of events, there is no explanation whatsoever in the said affidavit as to why the delay was caused. Affidavit of Master (Admin.) on the Original Side of this Court is also filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. It is stated in the affidavit that due to administrative problem such as transfer of staff in the concerned department, the bill for encashment of the petitioner could not be prepared within a reasonable time which caused delay of about seven months on the part of respondent No. 4 in preparing the bills for encashment of the petitioner. As stated earlier, so far as the State Government is concerned, there is hardly any explanation and so far as the office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court is concerned, the explanation is not at all satisfactory. So far as the Union of India is concerned, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed. However, we have heard the arguments on behalf of the Union of India through its Counsel. We have heard Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devnani for respondents No. 2 to 5 and Mr. Agarwal for respondent No. 1. We have gone through the correspondence attached to the petition.