PREM SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a retired civil servant. Having undergone by -pass surgery at the Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi in the year 1992, he submitted a bill for an amount of Rs. 1,31,250/ - to the State of Punjab for reimbursement. The payment was not made. He approached this Court through C.W.P.No. 5669 of 1994. He inter alia prayed that the respondents be directed to "release the actual medical reimbursement to the petitioner...."and "to allow this writ petition with 24% interest on the payment made by the petitioner from the date of petitioner has made the payment from his own pocket". This writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated October 4, 1994. Their Lordships were pleased to direct the respondents "to forthwith pay to the petitioner medical reimbursement i.e. expenses he actually spent on his treatment while undergoing treatment in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi". No interest was awarded. In pursuance to the directions, the amount of Rs. 1,31,250/ - was paid to the petitioner on February 14, 1995. The petitioner has now approached this Court with a prayer that a writ "in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant 18% compound interest on the delayed payment of medical reimbursement from the date of amount became due till its payment...." be issued.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Kapil Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that whenever the State delays the payment of any dues, it is bound to pay interest. He has also stated before us that in a similar writ petition No. 1236 of 1995, a Bench of this Court has directed the issue of notice of motion.

(3.) AS for the submission of the learned counsel that in a similar case viz. CWP No. 1236 of 1995, directions for the issue of a notice of motion have been given, it may be observed at the outset that the copy of the writ petition has not been produced before us. Assuming that the learned counsel is right in this submission, we are of the view that the issue of a notice to the respondents to show cause as to why a writ petition be not admitted does not constitute a precedent or an order which may be binding on an another Bench of co -ordinate jurisdiction. Uniformity in orders is not only desirable but an imperative ingredient of judicial discipline. However, in the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that entertaining a claim for the payment of interest in the year 1995 when the payment of the principal amount has already been made would not be justified.