Allahabad High Court
MOHD. RAIS KHANversusSATYA NARAIN GENERAL MANAGER ROADWAYS AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
Both special appeals are dismissed as they lack merit, and the payment of interest is to be made to the substituted appellant.
Summary
The appellant, a retired senior clerk of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, sought interest on delayed gratuity payments and filed multiple petitions, culminating in a contempt application and a writ petition. The Single Judge dismissed the contempt application, directing the appellant to pursue other remedies, and later dismissed the writ petition as an execution of the earlier order. The appellant died during the pendency, and his son was allowed to substitute as legal representative. The appellant then filed two special appeals, one alleging the appeal was barred by 121 days and seeking condonation, and the other challenging the enforceability of the compound‑interest direction. The Court examined the maintainability of the appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5, the effect of the appellate time‑extension on the interest direction, and the applicability of Supreme Court precedent, ultimately finding no merit and dismissing both appeals, directing payment of the due amount to the substituted appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules is maintainable when the lower court's order touches upon the merits of the dispute.
- Whether the direction for payment of compound interest remains enforceable despite the appellate court granting an additional one‑month period for payment.
- Whether the appeal barred by a 121‑day limitation can be condoned on the basis of the appellant's alleged right to pursue other remedies.
- Whether substitution of the deceased appellant by his son as legal representative is permissible.
- Whether the writ petition seeking interest constitutes an execution of the earlier contempt order.
Subjects
- gratuity
- interest
- contempt
- special appeal
- substitution of parties
- maintainability
- Allahabad High Court Rules
- delay condonation
- compound interest
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 96 of 2025
Mohd. Rais Khan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Satya Narain General Manager Roadways and another
.....Respondent(s)
Along with :
Special Appeal No. 98 of 2025:
Mohd. Rais Khan
Versus
UP State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director
and 2 others
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gulrez Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Awadhesh Kumar Saxena in S.A. No. 98/2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4209
of 2007, decided on 19.09.2024 and Writ-A No. 339 of 2025, decided on
16.01.2025 respectively.
2. During pendency of the present appeals, the appellant died and a
substitution application has been filed in both the appeals by his son
Mohd. Javed Khan, stating that the appellant has no other legal heir and
therefore, he may be substituted as legal representative of the sole
appellant in both the appeals.
3. For the reasons indicated in the applications, the same are allowed. The
applicant is permitted to be substituted as legal representative of the sole
appellant in both the appeals.
4. Special Appeal (Defective) No. 96 of 2025 is barred by 121 days. An
application seeking condonation of delay has been filed inter alia with the
indications that as in the impugned order, learned Single Judge had
SPLAD No. 96 of 2025
2
indicated that the appellant may exercise any other remedy available to
him in law, he filed Writ-A No. 339 of 2025, which came to be dismissed
on 16.01.2025 based on the order passed in Contempt Application (Civil)
No. 4209 of 2007 and as such, under legal advice, now the present appeal
against the order impugned has been filed.
5. At the outset, counsel for the appellant was asked as to how the appeal
against the order impugned under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952 is maintainable. Submissions were made that
learned Single Judge, while deciding the application alleging contempt,
has touched upon the merits of the controversy and therefore, the special
appeal would be maintainable, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda
and others : (2006) 5 SCC 399.
6. For appreciating the contention raised by counsel for the appellant, it
would be necessary to notice the circumstances under which the two
appeals arise.
7. The appellant was working as Senior Clerk in the Central Workshop of
the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation') and retired
as such on 31.01.1999. The amount of gratuity was not paid to the
appellant for which Writ Petition No. 55594 of 2000 was filed, the same
was disposed of with a direction to decide the claim within two months
and to pay the outstandings.
8. For non-compliance of the said order, Contempt Petition No. 805 of
2001 was filed, whereupon the gratuity was paid, however, the claim of
interest on the delayed payment was rejected by the respondent
Corporation. The contempt petition was dismissed holding that there was
no direction to pay interest.
9. Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 69724 of 2006 claiming interest at the
rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of gratuity. The writ
petition was allowed by order dated 04.04.2007. The operative portion of
the order reads as under:
"For the reason above, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the
respondents are directed to pay 12% simple interest to the petitioner on
the delayed payment of gratuity from a date of one month after his
retirement till the amounts were actually paid. Interest would be payable
SPLAD No. 96 of 2025
3
on each of the three installments of gratuity paid. The aforesaid amounts
should be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date
of submission of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioner
would be entitled for compound interest on the same rate and with the
same condition. No order as to cost."
10. The order passed by learned Single Judge was questioned by the
respondent Corporation in Special Appeal No. 972 of 2007, which came
to be decided by order dated 23.04.2010. The operative portion of the
order reads as under:
"That being the position, the award of interest @ 12% on the amount of
gratuity can not be said to be illegal. The order passed by the learned
Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The amount of
interest, if not paid, shall be paid within one month from the date on
which a certified copy of this order is present before the authority
concerned."
11. Alleging non-compliance of the order passed, the present Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 4209 of 2007 was filed, wherein the respondent
filed a counter affidavit disputing the allegations made in the application.
It was stated that the certified copy of the order passed in special appeal
was received on 21.05.2010 and the applicant-appellant was sent letters
on 28.09.2010, 13.10.2010, 09.11.2010, 27.11.2010 and 23.02.2011,
informing him that a cheque for the interest amount had been prepared
and the appellant was required to visit the office and receive the same.
However, the appellant did not respond to the said letters, based on which
it was indicated that there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed.
12. Before the learned Single Judge, submissions were made on behalf of
the appellant that as the amount being offered was only simple interest
and not the compound interest to which the appellant was entitled, the
same was not received.
13. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Division
Bench, while passing the order, had indicated that the amount of interest
not paid shall be paid within one month, which overrides the order passed
by the learned Single Judge qua the direction to pay compound interest
and consequently, came to the conclusion that there was no wilful
disobedience of the orders passed by the Court and dismissed the
contempt application and it was observed that the appellant may exercise
any other remedy available to him in law.
SPLAD No. 96 of 2025
4
14. Armed with the observation that the appellant may exercise any other
remedy available to him in law, Writ-A No. 339 of 2025 was filed
seeking payment of entire amount of interest on the delayed payment of
gratuity and the penal interest as per the directions of learned Single
Judge.
15. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge, the
learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petition was an attempt
to execute the order passed by learned Single Judge and the writ Court is
not an executing Court. Thereafter, referring to the observations made by
the Coordinate Bench while deciding the contempt petition, the writ
petition was dismissed, which has given rise to Special Appeal No. 98 of
2025.
16. From the facts which have been noticed above, it is apparent that
though the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, directed
payment of interest within a period of six weeks from the date of
submission of the certified copy of the order and, in default, ordered that
the appellant would be entitled for compound interest on the same rate
and with the same condition, in the appeal arising from the said order, as
would be noticed from the direction quoted herein before, the Division
Bench, while upholding the direction for payment of interest at the rate of
12%, specifically observed and directed that the amount of interest, if not
paid, shall be paid within one month from the date on which a certified
copy of the order is presented before the authority concerned.
17. The direction of the learned Single Judge qua payment of interest also
contained a default clause and provided for payment of compound interest
in case of failure to pay the interest within a period of six weeks.
However, in the appeal, though the direction to pay interest was not
interfered with, a further time of one month from the date of presentation
of certified copy was granted for making the payment.
18. The plea sought to be raised by the appellant that irrespective of
passing of the order by the Division Bench granting one month's time for
payment of interest from the date of presentation of certified copy, the
direction of the learned Single Judge for payment of compound interest
did not get diluted, cannot be appreciated/countenanced, inasmuch as,
while considering a plea pertaining to the very justification for awarding
SPLAD No. 96 of 2025
5
interest, it was always open for the appellate Court to extend the period
within which the order was to be complied with and it would always be
the appellate order which, in any manner varies the order passed by the
writ Court, would be executable. The circumstance would have been
different in case, without any further directions regarding payment, the
appeal was dismissed, in that case the direction of learned Single Judge
would have remained intact and executable as such, which is not the case
in the present circumstances.
19. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the respondents kept on
attempting to make payment of the due interest as ordered by learned
Single Judge, wherein several communications were sent to the appellant
to receive the same, however, the same was not received by the appellant,
apparently based on the insistence to get compound interest and not
simple interest, which insistence apparently had no basis.
20. Though we have our own doubts qua the maintainability of the
present appeal arising out of the order passed on the contempt petition in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples'
Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) and of this Court in Subhash Chandra Vs.
Srikant Goswami : 2024:AHC-LKO:58884-DB, in view of the fact that
we have dealt with the controversy as arising in the matter while hearing
appeal arising out of order passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition
arising from order dated 16.01.2025 as well, the said aspect goes in
oblivion.
21. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in both the
appeals. The same are therefore, dismissed.
22. The amount, which the respondents were seeking to pay to the
appellant, shall now be paid to the substituted appellant on his producing
a certified copy of this order along with requisites pertaining to his bank
accounts etc. and the fact that he is the sole legal representative of
deceased Mohd. Rais Khan.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
April 13, 2026
AHA
Digitally signed by :-
AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…