Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the interest on the amount withheld unjustifiedly by the present petitioner, Union of India for a period of 9 years.
(2.) SHRI Piyush Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the ex gratia payment from July, 1995 to June, 2004, i.e., for a period of 9 years has been withheld without any justification. Therefore, interest on the said amount was not payable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the amount of ex gratia payment to the respondent was illegal, as her deceased husband was not entitled for pension, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by SHRI Mishra that though this issue has never been agitated by the petitioner before the Tribunal, the issue being the pure question of law, he is entitled to agitate the same before this Court. The case represents a very sorry state of affairs, as earlier the respondent had approached the Tribunal for quashing the impugned orders dated 02.08.1999 and 24.02.2003 by filing the Original Application No. 768 of 2003, by which she had been denied the ex gratia payment,. The said Application was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 8th January, 2004. The Tribunal while deciding the case had taken note of the fact that during the pendency of the Application, the payment of the ex gratia had been directed and the said application was disposed of with the following directions. "Now that the respondent has already taken a decision to grant ex gratia payment to the applicant in accordance with law, Office Memorandum dated 13.05.1988, I am sure they would apply their mind to the point of delay also and in case it is so admissible under law, she may be granted the interest as well at admissible rates in accordance with law." Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment and order that the issue of grant of ex gratia payment had been decided by the petitioners themselves and it has not been decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the issue agitated before us cannot be entertained.
(3.) SO far as the impugned order dated 24th November, 2006 is concerned, admittedly, there was a delay of 9 years in making the ex gratia payment, which the respondent was entitled in view of the decision taken by the petitioners themselves. In the facts and circumstances of the case, direction for making the payment of interest is justified. Interest is compensatory in character and can be recovered for withholding the payment of any amount when it is due and payable. It is different from penalty and tantamount to compensation as the person entitled for recovery has been deprived of the right to use the said amount.;