CWP-284-2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ashok Virdi & others Punjab Urban Development Authority CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR, J. 1. Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ashok Virdi & others Versus Urban Development Authority, Mohali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. D.S.Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Ridhi Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. NAMIT KUMAR, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking (i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 (P while granting the Senior Scale of Rs.37400 8600 (Grade Pay) to the petitioners (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 regular service on the post including service as SDE after a delay of more than 10 years (approx.), the respondent has refused to grant 12% interest on the arrears accruing to the petitioners on account of grant of Senior Scale of Rs.37400 the petitioners (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became due to the petitioners IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-284-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 ...Petitioners , Mohali ...Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Advocate, for the petitioner. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Ridhi Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the impugned order dated 23.06.2022 (P-8) vide which while granting the Senior Scale of Rs.37400-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) to the petitioners (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE after a delay of more than 10 years (approx.), the respondent has refused to grant 12% interest on the arrears accruing to the petitioners on account of grant of Senior Scale of Rs.37400-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) to the petitioners (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became due to the petitioners under That a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing 8) vide which 67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) to the petitioners (Divisional years of regular service on the post including service as SDE after a delay of more than 10 years (approx.), the respondent has refused to grant 12% interest on the arrears accruing to the petitioners on account of grant of + 8600 (Grade Pay) to the petitioners (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became due to the petitioners VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) 2. were initially appointed as Development Board between the years 1977 merger of the Punjab Housing Development Board with Development Authority by the respondent the post of Sub Divisional Engineers between the years 1998 subsequently, 2014 in the pay scale of Rs.15600 depicting the dates of appointment and subsequent promotions of Divisional Engin 3. services of the petitioners Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999’ Regulation 23 under: (O&M) (2) and till actual payment of the arrears of Senior Scale was made to the petitioners. (ii) That a further writ in the nature of directing the respondent to grant 12% on the delayed payment of arrears accruing to the petitioners on account o Rs.37400-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became due to the petitioners till actual payment of the said arrears of Senior Scale was made to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Engineers Development Board between the years 1977 merger of the Punjab Housing Development Board with Development Authority, the services of the petitioners came to be governed by the respondent-Authority. Thereafter, the petitioners were Sub Divisional Engineers between the years 1998 subsequently, to the post of Divisional Engineers between the years 2014 in the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 + depicting the dates of appointment and subsequent promotions of Divisional Engineers has been annexed as Annexure P Learned counsel for the petitioner services of the petitioners are governed by the ‘Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999’ Regulation 23 thereof, dealing with ‘Pay and Allowances’ ent of the arrears of Senior Scale was That a further writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondent to grant 12% interest per annum on the delayed payment of arrears accruing to the petitioners on account of grant of Senior Scale of 67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became rs till actual payment of the said arrears of Senior Scale was made to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners Junior Engineers in the Punjab Housing Development Board between the years 1977 to 1992. Subsequently, upon merger of the Punjab Housing Development Board with the Punjab Urban the services of the petitioners came to be governed he petitioners were promoted to Sub Divisional Engineers between the years 1998 to 2002 and Divisional Engineers between the years 2008 to 39100 + GP Rs.7600. A detailed chart depicting the dates of appointment and subsequent promotions upto the post has been annexed as Annexure P-1. for the petitioners further submits that the by the ‘Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999’. ‘Pay and Allowances’, provides as ent of the arrears of Senior Scale was andamus be issued nterest per annum on the delayed payment of arrears accruing to the f grant of Senior Scale of 67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay) (Divisional Engineers) from the date of completion of 14 years of regular service on the post including service as SDE from the date the actual payment of Senior Scale became rs till actual payment of the said Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners the Punjab Housing . Subsequently, upon Urban the services of the petitioners came to be governed to 2002 and to t upto the post further submits that the by the ‘Punjab Urban Planning and . , provides as VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) 23. Pay and Allowances: (1) (2) No No. (O&M) (3) Pay and Allowances: Every employee shall be entitled to such special pay as may be sanctioned by the Authority from time to time but not less than PWD for technical categories and in Punjab Civil Secretariat in case of Ministerial and other categories. The scales of pay and special pay at pre in respect of the posts and services are given in Schedule I. No employee while in service of the Authority shall accept without the permission of the Appointing Authority any other employment or pay or honorarium or fee from any other source. SCHEDULE CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS Sr. No. Name of Post Number of Posts ENGINEERS WING X X X 5. Divisional Engineer (Civil) 16 6. Divisional Engineer (Public Health) 8 7. Divisional Engineer (Electrical) 4 8. Divisional Landscape Officer 1 Every employee shall be entitled to such scales of pay including special pay as may be sanctioned by the Authority from time to time but not less than PWD for technical categories and in Punjab Civil Secretariat in case of Ministerial and other categories. The scales of pay and special pay at present in force in respect of the posts and services are given in Schedule I. employee while in service of the Authority shall accept without the permission of the Appointing Authority any other employment or pay or honorarium or fee from any other SCHEDULE – I CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS –I (TECHNICAL) Number of Posts Scale of Post in Rupees X (i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE) (i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE) (i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as SDE) (i) 12000-15500 (ii) 14300-18150 (Scale after fourteen years of regular service including service as Sub Divisional Landscape Officer) scales of pay including special pay as may be sanctioned by the Authority from time to time but not less than PWD for technical categories and in Punjab Civil Secretariat in case of Ministerial and other sent in force employee while in service of the Authority shall accept without the permission of the Appointing Authority any other employment or pay or honorarium or fee from any other VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS No. (O&M) (4) SCHEDULE – CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS Sr. No. Name of Post Number of Posts ENGINEERS WING 1. Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) 38 2. Sub Divisional Engineer (Public Health) 23 3. Sub Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) 1 4. Sub Divisional Engineer (Electrical) 9 – I CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS CLASS – II (TECHNICAL) Number of Posts Scale of Post in Rupees (i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale) (i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale) (i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale) (i) 7880-13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry scale) (ii) 10025-15100 (after 4 years of regular service in the entry scale) (iii) 12000-15500 (after 9 years of regular service in the entry scale) 13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry years of regular service years of regular service (after 14 years of regular service 13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry years of regular service years of regular service service 13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry years of regular service years of regular service (after 14 years of regular service 13500 (with initial start of Rs.8000) (entry years of regular service years of regular service VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) 4. the Divisional Engineers of all the departments of Government of Punjab upon completion of 14 years of regular service, became entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 extended to the petitioners only after a lapse of dates on which they became eligible. furnished in para 2 Pet. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 5. repeated representations and the advice received by the respondent from the PWD (B&R) Department, Punjab scale of Rs.37400 service on the post of Divisional Engineer, inclusive of the service rendered on the post of SDE, though they were duly entitled to the same. Consequently, (O&M) (5) He further submits that after revision of pay scales in 2009, all the Divisional Engineers of all the departments of Government of Punjab upon completion of 14 years of regular service, became entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.14300-18150 (revised to Rs.37400 01.01.2006. However, despite such entitlement, the said benefit was extended to the petitioners only after a lapse of dates on which they became eligible. A chart to this effect has been in para 23 of the petition, which reads Pet. Name of the petitioner Date on which Senior Scale became due Ashok Virdi 20.08.2012 Bhupinder Kumar Chawla 22.06.2015 Harinder Singh Pannu 20.08.2012 Vasudev Anand 20.08.2012 Jagmohan Singh Khosa 28.04.2012 Learned counsel for the petitioners repeated representations and the advice received by the respondent from the PWD (B&R) Department, Punjab, the petitioners were not granted the senior 37400-67000 + GP 8600 upon completion of 14 years of regular service on the post of Divisional Engineer, inclusive of the service rendered on the post of SDE, though they were duly entitled to the same. Consequently, the petitioners served a legal notice (iv) 14300-18150 (after 14 years of regular service in the entry scale) after revision of pay scales in 2009, all the Divisional Engineers of all the departments of Government of Punjab upon completion of 14 years of regular service, became entitled to the higher Rs.37400-67000 + GP Rs.8600) despite such entitlement, the said benefit was extended to the petitioners only after a lapse of 10 years from the respective A chart to this effect has been which reads as under: Date on Senior Scale Date of placement in the Senior Scale Actual Date on which arrear of Senior Scale was granted 21.09.2022 31.10.2022 26.08.2022 29.11.2022 20.07.2022 14.10.2022 29.08.2022 21.11.2022 20.07.2022 15.09.2022 for the petitioners further submits that despite repeated representations and the advice received by the respondent from the , the petitioners were not granted the senior 67000 + GP 8600 upon completion of 14 years of regular service on the post of Divisional Engineer, inclusive of the service rendered on the post of SDE, though they were duly entitled to the same. the petitioners served a legal notice dated 15.02.2018 (after 14 years of regular service after revision of pay scales in 2009, all the Divisional Engineers of all the departments of Government of Punjab upon completion of 14 years of regular service, became entitled to the higher ) despite such entitlement, the said benefit was respective A chart to this effect has been Actual Date on which arrear of Senior Scale despite repeated representations and the advice received by the respondent from the , the petitioners were not granted the senior 67000 + GP 8600 upon completion of 14 years of regular service on the post of Divisional Engineer, inclusive of the service rendered on the post of SDE, though they were duly entitled to the same. 15.02.2018 VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) (Annexure P- feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioners approached this Court others Vs. PUDA, Mo dated 25.03.2022 consider and decide the legal notice dated months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order 6. junior to the petitioners to the petitioners. The particulars of the junior have been stated in para 18 of the petition It is, thus, submitted that in releasing the said are entitled for the grant of interest the said contention, Vs. Union of India & others, LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others, 894; Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, J.S.Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 7. referring to the averments made in the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. (HQ), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SAS Nagar, submits that administrative department Department of (O&M) (6) -6) upon the respondent, which evoked no response. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP-16007 others Vs. PUDA, Mohali’, which was disposed of by this Court vide order 25.03.2022 (Annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondent to and decide the legal notice dated 15.02.2018 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order It is further submitted that one junior to the petitioners, has already been granted the said benefit much prior to the petitioners. The particulars of the junior have been stated in para 18 of the petition and the said fact has not been denied in the written statement. It is, thus, submitted that since there has been an ino in releasing the said monetary benefit due to the petitioners are entitled for the grant of interest on the delayed payment. In support of contention, reliance has been placed Vs. Union of India & others, 2007 (3) SCC LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others, Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, J.S.Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, Learned senior counsel representing the respondent referring to the averments made in the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Mr. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, Additional Chief Administrator (HQ), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SAS Nagar, submits that in the year 2013, the PUDA has sought clarification from the administrative departments i.e. Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R), Punjab Department of Housing & Urban Development, Punjab upon the respondent, which evoked no response. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioners 16007-2018 titled ‘Ashok Virdi & , which was disposed of by this Court vide order with a direction to the respondent to 15.02.2018, within a period of 3 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. one Jaljinder Singh, SDE, who is been granted the said benefit much prior to the petitioners. The particulars of the junior have been stated in para 18 the said fact has not been denied in the written statement. has been an inordinate delay of 10 years due to the petitioners, therefore, they the delayed payment. In support of has been placed upon Alok Shanker Pandey 2007 (3) SCC 545; D.D.Tewari (D) through LRs Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others, 2014 (8) SCC Baljit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others, 2019 (2) SCT 116 and J.S.Cheema Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355. Learned senior counsel representing the respondent, while referring to the averments made in the short reply filed by way of an , Additional Chief Administrator (HQ), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SAS Nagar, the PUDA has sought clarification from the i.e. Chief Engineer, PWD (B&R), Punjab; Housing & Urban Development, Punjab and Finance upon the respondent, which evoked no response. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioners 2018 titled ‘Ashok Virdi & , which was disposed of by this Court vide order with a direction to the respondent to within a period of 3 jinder Singh, SDE, who is been granted the said benefit much prior to the petitioners. The particulars of the junior have been stated in para 18 the said fact has not been denied in the written statement. delay of 10 years y the delayed payment. In support of Alok Shanker Pandey D.D.Tewari (D) through 2014 (8) SCC and while referring to the averments made in the short reply filed by way of an , Additional Chief Administrator (HQ), Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, SAS Nagar, the PUDA has sought clarification from the ; and Finance VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) Department, Punjab said clarification, which was finally given by the said Department year 2022, the petitioners that there was no intentional delay on the part of the respondent, as the matter remained pending with the administrative department/s submitted that the 2018, i.e., by way of CWP therefore, they are not entitled to claim interest for the earlier period. 8. the record. 9. scale of Rs.37400 service is not benefit to the petitioners, as is clear from the above reproduced chart. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled for the said benefit as per Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999 said benefit was not granted to the petitioners immediately when they became entitled for the same as per aforesaid Regulations record reveals that certain employees the said benefit any justifiable reason. 10. remained pending need for administrative justification for depriving (O&M) (7) Department, Punjab regarding grant of the aforesaid ben said clarification, which was finally given by the said Department year 2022, the petitioners were granted the said benefit that there was no intentional delay on the part of the respondent, as the matter remained pending with the administrative department/s submitted that the petitioners themselves approached this Court in the year by way of CWP-16007-2018, after serving the legal notice and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim interest for the earlier period. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused Admittedly, entitlement of the petitioners Rs.37400-67000 + GP 8600 upon completion of 14 years of regular service is not in dispute, as the respondent has itself extended the said to the petitioners, as is clear from the above reproduced chart. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled for the said benefit as per Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) Regulations, 1999 governing the services of the petitioners. However, the said benefit was not granted to the petitioners immediately when they became entitled for the same as per aforesaid Regulations record reveals that certain employees junior to the petitioners the said benefit earlier, whereas the petitioners were denied the same without any justifiable reason. The explanation advanced by the respondent that the matter remained pending on account of inter-departmental correspondence and the administrative clarification, cannot justification for depriving the petitioners of compensation for the delayed regarding grant of the aforesaid benefit. On receipt of said clarification, which was finally given by the said Department/s in the granted the said benefit. She, thus, submits that there was no intentional delay on the part of the respondent, as the matter remained pending with the administrative department/s. It is further approached this Court in the year 2018, after serving the legal notice and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim interest for the earlier period. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused e petitioners to the grant of pay completion of 14 years of regular respondent has itself extended the said to the petitioners, as is clear from the above reproduced chart. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled for the said benefit as per Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) ervices of the petitioners. However, the said benefit was not granted to the petitioners immediately when they became entitled for the same as per aforesaid Regulations. Rather, the junior to the petitioners were extended earlier, whereas the petitioners were denied the same without by the respondent that the matter departmental correspondence and the cannot furnish a legally sustainable the petitioners of compensation for the delayed receipt of in the submits that there was no intentional delay on the part of the respondent, as the . It is further approached this Court in the year 2018, after serving the legal notice and, I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the grant of pay completion of 14 years of regular respondent has itself extended the said to the petitioners, as is clear from the above reproduced chart. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were entitled for the said benefit as per Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Employees Service) ervices of the petitioners. However, the said benefit was not granted to the petitioners immediately when they . Rather, the extended earlier, whereas the petitioners were denied the same without by the respondent that the matter departmental correspondence and the furnish a legally sustainable the petitioners of compensation for the delayed VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) release of their monetary dues. jurisprudence that an employee departmental correspondence delays or lapses petitioners on the dates of their respective eligibility continued to years. Once the amount due has admittedly been released belatedly, the petitioners became entitled to interest on the delayed payment Supreme Court 11. Cheema’s case (supra) department without any valid justification for which an employee was entitled for, the same would carry interest. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under: (O&M) (8) release of their monetary dues. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that an employee cannot be made to suffer on account of inter departmental correspondence or administrative inefficiency, procedural delays or lapses. The monetary benefits admittedly became due to the petitioners on the dates of their respective eligibility ontinued to utilize the said amount for a considerable period of 7 to 10 Once the amount due has admittedly been released belatedly, the petitioners became entitled to interest on the delayed payment Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey’s case (supra) “8. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.” As per the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in case (supra), where an amount has been department without any valid justification for which an employee was entitled for, the same would carry interest. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under: “5. xx xx The jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is It is a settled principle of service be made to suffer on account of inter- or administrative inefficiency, procedural The monetary benefits admittedly became due to the petitioners on the dates of their respective eligibility and the respondent a considerable period of 7 to 10 Once the amount due has admittedly been released belatedly, the petitioners became entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Hon’ble the case (supra) has held as under: It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to day, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself n it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also As per the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in J.S. amount has been retained by the department without any valid justification for which an employee was entitled for, the same would carry interest. The relevant paragraph of the xx he jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is It is a settled principle of service - or administrative inefficiency, procedural The monetary benefits admittedly became due to the he respondent a considerable period of 7 to 10 Once the amount due has admittedly been released belatedly, the Hon’ble the It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to day, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself n it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also J.S. retained by the department without any valid justification for which an employee was entitled for, the same would carry interest. The relevant paragraph of the he jurisprudential basis for grant of interest is the fact that one person's money has been used by somebody else. It is in that sense rent for the usage of money. If the user is VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-284-2023 (O&M) 12. respondent-PUDA 7% p.a. on the delayed payment account of grant of senior scale i.e. Rs. from the date date of actual payment/s. period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13.07.2026 Vimal (O&M) (9) compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with whom the money is lying, it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which rightly belonged to the petitioner was in the custody of the State and was being used by it.” In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The PUDA is directed to grant interest to the petitioners at the rate of he delayed payment of the arrears accrued to the petitioners on account of grant of senior scale i.e. Rs.37400 from the date the said amount became due to each of the petitioner date of actual payment/s. The aforesaid exercise shall be compl period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which the petitioner was in the custody of the State the present petition is allowed. The interest to the petitioners at the rate of the arrears accrued to the petitioners on 37400-67000 + 8600 (Grade Pay), became due to each of the petitioners till the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No compounded by any negligence on the part of the person with it may result in higher rate because then it can also include the component of damages (in the form of interest). In the circumstances, even if there is no negligence on the part of the State it cannot be denied that money which the petitioner was in the custody of the State the present petition is allowed. The interest to the petitioners at the rate of the arrears accrued to the petitioners on , till the eted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this VIMAL KUMAR 2026.07.16 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.