Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...APPELANTS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. J. K. GOEL ...RESPONDENT
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1995
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
BENCH:
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 161 1995 SCALE (3)550
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE, 8TH DAY OF MAY, 1995
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. S. Verma
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
Mr. A. K. Sharma, Mr. S. N. Terdol, Advs. for the Appellants
Mr. Raju Rama Chandran, Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Satish
Vig,
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Union of India & Ors. ...Appelants
v.
Dr. J. K. Goel ...Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Delay Condoned.
Special leave Granted.
This appeal is from an order of the Central Administratice
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 22nd of April, 1994 in O.
A. No.849/1993.
The respondent was granted selection grade (non-
funcational) in the post of Deputy Commissioner of Incometex
with effect from 1.1.86, by an office order dated 11.3.92.
The respondent was paid an amount of Rs.20,772/- pursuant to
the granting of the selection grade to him w.e.f. 1.1.86, in
the last week of March, 1992.
The respondent filed the above O.A. No.849/1993 before
the Central Administratice Tribunal claiming interest on the
said amount from 1.1.86 to the end of March, 1992. The
tribunal by the impugned otrder has granted interest @ 12%
per annum for the saidf period to the respondent. This order
is challenged in the present appeal.
The respondent jouned the Indian Revenue Service in
1969. He was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Incometax in
the year 1979. The respondent was considered fro thr grant
of non-functional selection grade by the Departmental
Promotion Committee held in May/June 1990. His case was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
deferred as his Confidential Reports were not available. His
name was again considered by the Departmental Promotion
Committee held after 3 month in September 1990. As the
integrity of the respondent was not certified by the
vigilance departmental, and two memoranda had already been
issued to him calling for his explanation, the findings of
the Departmental Promotion Committee relating to the
respondent were kept in a sealed cover in accordance with
the provision contained in the DOP&T OM No.22011/2/86-
East(A) dated 12th of January 1988.
The respondent approached the Central Administratice
Tribunal at Delhi against the adoption of the procedure of a
sealed cover in the matter of grant of selection grade to
him. The Tribunal by its order dated 3rd of January, 1991
ordered the Department to give effect to the recommendations
of the Departmental Promotion Committee w.e.f. 1st of
January 1986, this being the date from which person junior
to the respondent were granted non-functional selection
grade, provided he was declared fit by the Departmental
Promotion Committee.
On 16th of July 1991 a charge-sheet was served on the
respondent. The Department, however, in view of the above
order of the Tribunal, took steps of implement the order by
adopting the appropriate departmental procedure for opening
the sealed cover. When the sealed cover was opened the
respondent was found fit. The requisite approval from the
Finance Ministry was obtained on 5th of March, 1992.
Thereafter, orders were issued granting non-functional
selection grade to the respondent on 11th of March, 1992.
The consequent payment 1992. We are further informed that
the departmental proceedings are still pending against the
respondent.
In these ciroumstances we have to examine whether ther
order of the Tribunal granging interest @ 12% per annum to
the respondent for the period January 1986 to March 1992 can
be upheld. In the first place, there is no provision of law
under which such interest can be granted. Learned Advocte
for the respondent, however, has contended before us that on
equitable considerations, the Tribunal has granted interest
@ 12% per annum to the respondent and we need not interfere
with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in this
regard. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we cannot accept the submission made by
learned Advocate for the respondent. Before any interest can
be granted on equitable considerations, it is necessary that
the facts of the case should be examined to ascertian
whether there are any special equties which would justify
the grant of such interest although there is no provision in
law for such grant. We have failed to find any such equities
in favour of the respondent in the present case. The
respondent alongwith others was considereed by the
Departmental Promotion, Committee for the grant of selection
grade only in 1990. All those who were selected by the
Departmental Promotion Committee and granted selsction
grade w.e.f. 1.1.86 were given the difference in salary and
other emoluments soon after the issuance of the order
granting them selection grade. None of them received
interest from January 1986 on the amounts so paid, althought
they were granted selsecion grade w.e.f. 1.1.86 In the case
of the Departmental Promotion committee immediately and the
sealed cover procedure had to be resorted to because his
intergarity was not certified by the Department in view of
the two memoranda having already been issued to the
respondent. We will assume in favour of the respondent that
these memoranda as well as the chargesheed which has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
subsequently issed, are unwarpanted. navertheless, the
Departmental Promotion Committee was required to adopt the
sealed cover procedure for vailed reasons. it was only on
account of the order dated 3rd of January, 1991 issued by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, that the sealed
cover was opened, although investigations were pending and a
charge-sheet had also been issued. In these circumstances
selection grade was granted to the respondent by the order
dated 11th of March 1992. It is difficult to see any
equities in favour of the respondent which would require
granting on any iterset to him form 1st January, 1986 as has
been done in the present case. At any rate, when the
Departmental Enquiry is not complete and the respondent has
not so far been exonerated of the charges made against him,
the grant of interest appears to be wholly unjustified.
In the above circumstances, as we fail to see any kind
of equity in favour of the respondent, the impugned order of
the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is allowed. In the
circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.