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.