Railway Employee Receives 2011–15 Promotion Arrears, But Tribunal Rejects His Interest Claim For Delay And Lack Of Proof

The applicant challenged the respondents’ refusal to pay interest on arrears of pay and allowances arising from his promotion to Loco Pilot Goods (LPG).

After revision of the promotion panel pursuant to an earlier Tribunal order, his promotion and pay were made effective from the date his juniors were promoted, and the respondents stated that the admissible arrears had been paid.

The applicant’s claim arose in 2012, but he filed this O.A. in 2017 without an application seeking condonation of delay.

The Tribunal recorded that the remaining monetary claim was for interest on the arrears.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 requires an application to be brought within the prescribed period—ordinarily one year from the relevant final order or, in the circumstances specified by the provision, from expiry of the representation period; an application filed late may be admitted if the applicant establishes sufficient cause.

In Dr. Virendra Kumar Swarnkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8747 of 2022, decided 22 August 2022, the Supreme Court granted consequential salary arrears but declined interest in view of the delay in approaching the Court, indicating that interest must be assessed separately.

S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, recognises that interest on delayed service benefits may be claimed by reference to applicable rules or instructions or, in an appropriate case, constitutional principles; entitlement depends on the circumstances of the particular claim.

The Tribunal found that the cause of action arose in 2012 and that the applicant approached it in 2017 without seeking condonation or showing sufficient cause for the delay, making the O.A. time-barred under Section 21.

On the merits, the respondents had restored the applicant’s seniority and refixed his pay from the date his juniors received the revised pay; the arrears for the relevant period had also been paid, including for a period when he had not actually shouldered the higher responsibilities.

The applicant did not establish a basis for interest under applicable rules or instructions, or show mala fide or unjustified action or inaction by the respondents causing the delay.

The Tribunal therefore treated interest as a distinct claim not automatically arising from entitlement to arrears.

It held that the arrears had been paid and that the applicant had not established entitlement to interest; no order as to costs was made.