In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge an order dated 09-03-2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (CAT), whereby the petitioner’s claim for interest on delayed payment of salary and retiral dues was declined, a Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that the impugned orders did not suffer from any error and dismissed the petition.
The petitioner joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in 1971, and in 1976, he was appointed as an Assistant teacher at a primary school through direct recruitment. In 2005, he was promoted to become the Headmaster, which was subsequently converted to Principal, and he superannuated on 28-02-2007, being relieved on 12-03-2007.
The petitioner approached this Court seeking the release of his salary and benefits, along with certain dues, including honorarium for election duty. After passing of directions regarding the release of the due amounts deposited with the Registry, the petition was transferred to the CAT and was disposed of on 24-04-2009, directing the respondents to pay the legitimate dues to the petitioner within a month.
Aggrieved by the non-compliance, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings before this Court, and the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the CAT again. After considering the pleadings, the CAT found that the delay in the release of salary payments was attributable to the petitioner’s own conduct and declined interest on the delayed salary and retirement dues. However, the respondents were directed to pay the honorarium and bonus for election duty with simple interest at 6% within three months.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application for non-payment of interest, which was dismissed by the CAT, holding that no error had been demonstrated and that review jurisdiction could not be exercised as if it were appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition was filed.
Considering the claim for interest on delayed salary and retirement benefits, the Court noted that the CAT found the delay was caused by the petitioner, who never came forward to sign the pay bills or complete the necessary formalities. It was found that the view taken by the CAT was plausible, based on the documents and correspondence, and hence, the Court held that it could not undertake a re-appreciation of evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view may be possible.
The Court noted that the claim for interest concerned the salary for the period 1975-2007, which was disbursed between 1984 and 2011. Considering the non-issuance of any direction for payment of interest in the order dated 24-04-2009 by the CAT, the Court said that once a competent forum grants only the principal relief and remains silent as to interest, the claim for such ancillary relief must be treated as having been declined and the delay as condoned. The Court held that in a subsequent round of litigation, the petitioner cannot seek to reopen or re-agitate a claim that had been concluded in the earlier proceedings.
Regarding the dismissal of the Review Application, the Court stated that a review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and that unless an error apparent on the record is shown, the order under challenge cannot be altered. Therefore, it was stated that the CAT was justified in dismissing the review application as no such error was pointed out by the petitioner.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition while holding that the impugned orders by the CAT did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or infirmity to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – N/A
For Respondents – Mr. Akhil Mittal (SC-MCD), Ms. Riddhi Jain, Ms. Shayna Das Pattanayak, Mr. Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Mr. Harsh Kumar Pandey, Mrs. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Shreya Manjari
