Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010281112025 2026:GAU-AS:1296 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7472/2025 ASHA RANI (GS -188066L) 1644 PIONEER COY (GREF), C/O 99 APO, LANKESHWAR, JHALUKBARI (WEST), GUWAHATI-781014. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS ORGNISATION (BRO) SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD RING ROAD DELHI CANTT. NEW DELHI-110010 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER HQ CE (P) DEEPAK C/O 56 APO. 4:THE COMMANDER HQ 759 BRTF C/O 56 APO. 5:THE OFFICER COMMANDING 108 RCC (GREF) C/O 56 APO Page No.# 2/8 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. MP Sarma Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. UK Goswami Central Govt. Counsel Date on which Judgment is reserved: NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 02.02.2026 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. MP Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. UK Goswami, the learned CGC, who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner @9% on the ex-gratia payment of Rs.5,00,000/- w.e.f. 01.04.2003 i.e. 3(three) months after the death of the petitioner’s husband till Page No.# 3/8 01.11.2023 when the petitioner received the ex-gratia payment. 3. The facts as would show from the materials on record are that the petitioner’s husband one Raman Kumar (since deceased) joined the General Reserve Engineer Force in May 1988 as Operator of Excavator Machine. Unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband expired due to an accident on 01.01.2003. In terms with an Office Memorandum bearing No.45/55/97-P & PW(C) dated 11.09.1998, an ex-gratia lumpsum compensation is payable to the families of the Central Government Civil Services, who die in harness. This aspect is apparent from the Paragraph No.5(a) of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.1998 which stipulates that on account of the death occurring due to accident in course of performance of duties, an ex-gratia payment of Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid. A perusal of the Office Memorandum does not stipulate that interest is payable if there is delay in payment of the ex-gratia beyond a particular point of time. 4. The materials on record show that the petitioner claimed the said amount. But the same was rejected vide an order dated 29.01.2016 on the ground that at the time of the accident/death of the petitioner’s husband he was not on Government bona fide duty. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as Page No.# 4/8 WP(C)No.5742/2019. The reliefs which have been sought for in the writ petition being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: “In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Rule call for the records and upon hearing the parties as to the cause and/or causes and on perusal of the records be pleased to grant the petitioner the following relief/reliefs: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature towards setting aside and quashing the Communication bearing No. 15078/DGBR/Ex- Gratia/GP/12/E1C’A’ dated 29.01.2016. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction of like nature directing the respondent authorities to pay ex-gratia Lumpsum compensation in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.1998. (iii) And/or pass such further order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. -AND- Pending disposal of this writ application, it is most respectfully prayed that your lordship would be pleased to pass following direction; (i) to pay ex-gratia Lumpsum compensation in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.1998. (ii) And/or pass such further order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 10.04.2023 holding inter alia Page No.# 5/8 that the benefit of the Office Memorandum dated 11.09.1998 for payment of ex-gratia amount cannot be denied to the petitioner, who is admittedly the widow of the Central Government Civil Employee and accordingly, this Court directed release of the said amount to the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 2(two)months from the date of the said order i.e. 10.04.2023. The petitioner thereupon received the said amount on 01.11.2023. 6. The petitioner after receipt of the said amount kept quiet and thereupon after a period of 2(two) years filed the instant writ petition on 15.12.2025 now claiming interest w.e.f. 01.04.2003 @ 9% till the date of payment i.e. 01.11.2023. 7. The matter was listed before this Court on 05.01.2026 when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought for time to address this Court on the ground as to whether the petitioner can re-agitate the claim for interest after having not sought for any interest at the time of filing the earlier writ proceedings and, the learned Coordinate Bench having not granted interest. 8. Today, Mr. MP Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the order dated Page No.# 6/8 16.09.2019 passed by the learned High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP-8183-2018 and submitted that the learned High Court of Punjab & Haryana had awarded interest @9%. In addition to that the learned counsel has also placed before this Court, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Parmal Singh and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 618 as well as the judgment in the case of M/s. Jagdish Rai & Brothers Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (3) SCC 257. 9. It is pertinent to take note of that in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in WP(C)No.5742/2019, the petitioner never claimed any interest and the relief which were sought for as already quoted hereinabove was that a direction be issued to pay the ex-gratia lumpsum compensation to the petitioner after setting aside the order dated 29.01.2016 whereby the petitioner’s claim for ex-gratia was rejected. 10. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 10.04.2023 did not pass any direction for payment of interest and specifically directed release of the amount within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the said order. 11. This Court has also taken note of the order passed by the learned High Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein it is apparent from a reading Page No.# 7/8 of the said order itself that the interest was claimed along with the ex- gratia and the ex-gratia was paid only during the pendency of the said writ petition. 12. This Court has also taken note of the judgments placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Parmal Singh (supra) and the facts involved therein would not apply to the facts of the instant case. 13. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that there is a fundamental difference between the fact when a Court passes an order for payment of the principal along with an interest irrespective of the fact that the statute does not conceive of payment of the interest and for the fact when the Court only passes an order for payment of the principal without exercising its jurisdiction to direct payment of interest. 14. In the present case, it is the later, inasmuch as, vide the order dated 10.04.2023 there was no direction to make payment of the interest. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Parmal Singh (supra) would not apply. Page No.# 8/8 15. Similarly in the case of M/s. Jagdish Rai (supra) also the facts are different, inasmuch as, the issues involved therein pertains to whether the Arbitrator has the jurisdiction to direct payment of interest post the award, even though there is no claim for interest prior to the filing of the Arbitration proceedings or pendente lite. This judgment also would not help the case of the petitioner. 16. In the present case, it is also pertinent to take note of that the petitioner duly received the amount on 01.11.2023 and even did not approach the respondent authorities and had directly approached this Court and what the petitioner now seeks is in the form of review of the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C)No.5742/2019 by initiating the present litigation. 17. It is the opinion of this Court that entertaining such a dispute by issuance of notice would be nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. 18. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ proceedings to issue notice, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant