Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Riteshkumar Narendrabhai Patel, was an Assistant Teacher who was arrested on 09.02.2005 and suspended on 28.06.2005. He was enlarged on bail on 02.08.2005 and ultimately acquitted by the criminal court on 16.10.2006. The State's appeal against acquittal was dismissed on 17.09.2009. Despite the acquittal, the appellant did not seek reinstatement until 11.02.2011, a delay of over 5 years. The respondent authorities acceded to his request and passed an order of reinstatement on 10.01.2012. However, the appellant reported for duty only on 21.09.2012, a further delay of over 8 months. While ordering reinstatement, the respondent paid the differential amount of Rs.7,52,756/- in October 2012. The appellant filed a writ petition in 2013 seeking interest at 18% per annum on this amount, claiming it was unlawfully withheld. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, noting the appellant's own delays. The Division Bench, in the present Letters Patent Appeal, upheld the Single Judge's decision, holding that the delay in seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty was entirely attributable to the appellant, and therefore, he was not entitled to any interest on the differential amount. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Reinstatement - Interest on Differential Amount - Delay in Seeking Reinstatement - The appellant, an Assistant Teacher, was suspended on 28.06.2005 after arrest, acquitted on 16.10.2006, but sought reinstatement only on 11.02.2011. Reinstatement was ordered on 10.01.2012, but he reported for duty on 21.09.2012. The differential amount of Rs.7,52,756/- was paid in October 2012. The appellant claimed interest at 18% per annum on this amount. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the delay in seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty was attributable to the appellant, and therefore, he was not entitled to interest. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to interest at 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.7,52,756/- paid to him at the time of regularizing the period of suspension, given the delay in seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interest on delayed payment of suspension period amount
- Delay in seeking reinstatement disentitles interest
- No entitlement to interest when delay is attributable to employee
Case Details
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 14 of 2016 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/14140/2013
N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J. L. ODEDRA
MR GIRISH M DAS for the Appellant, MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for Respondents 1,2, MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 3
Riteshkumar Narendrabhai Patel
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking interest on differential amount paid on reinstatement after suspension.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought interest at 18% per annum on Rs.7,52,756/- paid as differential amount on reinstatement.
Filing Reason
Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition for interest.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay by the appellant in seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty.
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on the differential amount paid on reinstatement when there was delay on his part in seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the amount was unlawfully withheld and he was entitled to interest.
Respondents contended that the delay was attributable to the appellant and he was not entitled to interest.
Ratio Decidendi
An employee who delays seeking reinstatement and reporting for duty after acquittal is not entitled to interest on the differential amount paid on reinstatement, as the delay is attributable to the employee.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant herein had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.7,52,756/- which was paid to him at the time of regularizing the period of suspension while ordering his reinstatement.
Notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted on 16.10.2006, he did not seek reinstatement till 11.02.2011.
The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant did not seek reinstatement for over a period of 5 years despite being acquitted and also did not choose to report for duty despite an order of reinstatement being passed in January 2012, came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the grant of interest.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a writ petition (Special Civil Application No. 14140 of 2013) seeking interest on the differential amount. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (No. 14 of 2016) against that dismissal.
