Non-litigating employees are not entitled to interest on late payment of arrears when the previous judgment explicitly denied such interest.

The 20 applicants, formerly holding faculty and administrative positions at the National Telecommunications Institute for Policy Research, Innovation and Training (NTIPRIT), sought payment of Training Allowances for various periods between 2012 and 2017.

They relied on a precedent set by the Tribunal in OA No. 3948/2014 (A.K. Mittal & Ors vs UOI), which was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in 2019.

Following the issuance of notice in the present OA, the respondents released the principal Training Allowance amounts to the applicants.

Consequently, the applicants narrowed their relief to the payment of 9% interest on the delayed payments.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of Training Allowances.

2. Whether the Tribunal should depart from the precedent established in the earlier litigation (OA No. 3948/2014) regarding the grant of interest.

The court applied the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of parity.

Principle derived from OA No. 3948/2014 dated 13.07.2016, which held that while applicants were entitled to Training Allowances and arrears, they were not entitled to interest on those arrears based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were "silent spectators" who did not proactively seek legal remedy or make representations until after the previous litigation reached finality in the Supreme Court.

Regarding the claim for interest, the Tribunal observed that in the representative's initial demand (Annexure A-5), there was no prayer for interest.

The Tribunal reasoned that since it had explicitly denied interest to the original claimants in the 2016 precedent (OA No. 3948/2014), there was no justification to adopt a "divergent view" or grant a more favorable outcome to the current applicants who approached the court at a late stage.

The respondents having already redressed the primary grievance by paying the principal amount, the claim for interest was deemed unsustainable.

As the principal amounts had already been paid during the pendency of the OA, the Tribunal found that the grievances were largely redressed; the OA was disposed of with no orders as to costs.