Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA 913/2024 & CM APPL.52853-55/2024
ASHOK KINRA ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha
Through: Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Govt. Pleader.
Mr. Himanshu Sehrawat and Mr. Aditya Shankar Pandey, Advocates for
R-1 & R-2.
Date of Decision: 15th September, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGEMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J : (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Present Letters Patent appeal has been filed assailing the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2024 and impugned order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 1732/2023 whereby the appellant had sought a direction to respondent no.1 for release of the entire principal amount of Rs.2,54,946/- to the appellant along with interest against medical reimbursement and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment and legal expenses incurred by the appellant.
2. The appellant’s case in brief is that he joined respondent no.1/Central Cottage Industries Corporation (CCIC) as a Company Secretary at the level of Deputy Manager in the year 1991. The wife of the appellant was suffering from cancer and had to undergo an immediate surgery and in view of the urgency and non-availability of doctor, the surgery took place in B.L. Kapoor Hospital which is not empanelled with the respondents. The total bill raised by the B.L. Kapoor Hospital towards medical expenses for the surgery was Rs.3,57,158/-. A sum of Rs.2,85,726/- was given as advance and the appellant claimed the reimbursement of the amount of Rs.3,57,158/- after deducting Rs.2,85,726/-. However, the said claim of the appellant was rejected by the respondent no.1 vide letter dated 14.03.2016. Though later on, the reimbursement amount was released to the appellant but only on ad hoc basis upon an undertaking claimed to have been signed under duress by the appellant. It is the appellant’s case that upon his superannuation in the year 2018, a sum of Rs.2,54,946/- was withheld from the terminal benefits due and payable to the appellant, constraining him to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgement dated 02.07.2024 allowed the underlying writ petition in favour of the appellant. The relevant portions of the same read thus:
the entire amount from the Insurance Company but is paying even lesser than the amount of Rs.1.[5] lakhs which the Petitioner is entitled to under the insurance policy on the ground that the operation of the wife of the Petitioner was conducted in a hospital which is not empanelled with the Respondents. The stand of Respondent No.1/CCIC is completely inequitable. Another interesting fact is that in the case of Mr. Uttam Singh, the Respondent No.1/CCIC has paid the entire amount of money and now filed a claim before the Consumer Forum for recovery of money from the Insurance Company. There is no reason to differentiate the case of the Petitioner from the case of Mr. Uttam Singh more so when the entire money has been received by the Respondent No.1/CCIC from the Insurance Company. If the Respondent No.1/CCIC could pay the entire amount to Mr. Uttam Singh, there is no reason as to why the Petitioner should be differentiated with Mr. Uttam Singh and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to be paid the entire amount. The Respondent No.1/CCIC is a PSU under the control of Ministry of Textiles. An appeal and grievance has been raised by the Petitioner before the Ministry of Textiles and the file notings have also been produced by the Petitioner before this Court. The file notings of the Ministry in the case of the Petitioner are being reproduced below: “
2. In this regard, this Ministry has sought clarifications and issued directions to CCIC. This Ministry vide letter dated 30.10.2018 directed CCIC to take the matter to board and find a practical solution to it. CCIC vide letter dated 06.02.2019 has submitted that the CCIC board has decided to keep the matter in abeyance till the outcome/decision of the consumer court case filed by CCIC is received. The case has been examined by this Ministry and there is no link between the case filed by CCIC and the medical claims of Sh. Ashok Kinra. The matter is being delayed by CCIC unnecessarily.
3. Insurance company has paid CCIC Rs. 3.57 Lakhs for settlement of the claim of Sh. Ashok Kinra. As per the insurance claim policy the amount should be paid to Sh. Ashok Kinra only.
4. In view of above, we may direct CCIC to release the full amount to Shri Ashok kinra without delaying it further and to avoid further litigation. Submitted for approval and further directions please.”
12. The Central Government has accepted the case of the Petitioner and has directed the Respondent No.1/CCIC to reimburse the full amount to the Petitioner. For the reasons best known to the Respondent No.1/CCIC, the direction of the Respondent No.1/CCIC is not being followed by the Respondent No.1/CCIC.
13. The Respondent No.1/CCIC which is an instrumentality of the State is adopting the policy of pick and choose inasmuch as it has paid the entire amount of money to Mr. Uttam Singh and has held that Mr. Uttam Singh is entitled to Rs.13,23,359/-. Whereas, the Petitioner for whom the entire amount stands received by Respondent No.1/CCIC from the Insurance Company, the Petitioner is not being paid the money by Respondent No.1/CCIC. The conduct of Respondent No.1/CCIC is inexplicable. The fact that Mr. Uttam Singh got his treatment from an empanelled hospital and the Petitioner has not got the treatment of his wife from an empanelled hospital cannot be a reason to deny the reimbursement of the amount to the Petitioner. The Petitioner should be treated at par with Mr. Uttam Singh inasmuch as Mr. Uttam Singh has been paid the entire amount under the same Insurance Policy which is more than Rs.1.[5] lakhs, which according to the Respondent No.1/CCIC is the maximum amount payable under the policy, and therefore, the Petitioner should also be entitled to the entire amount of Rs.3,57,158/-. The Respondent No.1/CCIC is directed to pay the amount of Rs.2,54,946/- to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.
14. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
4. As the learned Single Judge did not award interest or costs in favour of the appellant, he preferred an application bearing CM APPL.40070/2024 seeking modification of the judgment dated 02.07.2024, which was however dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.07.2024. The same reads thus: “CM APPL. 40070/2024
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking modification in the Judgment dated 02.07.2024 passed by this Court in the present petition i.e., W.P.(C) 1732/2023.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner would be entitled to interest and compensation as he was subjected to immense mental harassment and agony at the hands of Respondent No.1. The Petitioner had prayed for Rs.[1] Lakhs towards mental harassment and legal expenses that the Petitioner had to incur and interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of deduction till the amount is paid to the Petitioner. This Court vide Judgment dated 02.07.2024, after looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, did not grant the relief prayed for.
3. In the garb of an application for modification of the judgment dated 02.07.2024, the Petitioner in fact is seeking review of the Judgment dated 02.07.2024. The application does not show any error apparent on the face of the records.
4. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”
5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of CM APPL.40070/2024, the appellant has preferred the present appeal challenging both, the judgement dated 02.07.2024 and the order dated 23.07.2024.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that withholding of a sum of Rs.2,54,946/- from the terminal benefits of the appellant on superannuation is illegal and upon allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted interest as also costs in the context of harassment meted out to the appellant by the respondents.
7. He further contended that once the respondents had received the full amount from the Insurance Company, it had no choice other than to reimburse the appellant’s claim. Instead of that, the respondents having withheld the said amount, that too without any authority of law, would tantamount to an illegal and unlawful deduction of the terminal benefits. This would entail two aspects, namely (i) grant of interest at a reasonable rate till the date of impugned judgement dated 02.07.2024, and (ii) costs ought to be imposed upon the respondents for causing not only harassment but on account of illegally withholding the rightful claim of the appellant.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement dated 02.07.2024 and impugned order dated 23.07.2024, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal.
9. While hearing the present appeal, learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to a document in the form of an undertaking submitted by the appellant to the respondent on 12.12.2016. It would be appropriate to appreciate the contents thereof. The same reads as under: “UNDERTAKING Ref. letterNo.CCIC/Pers/2016/ dt. September 12, 2016, I am aware that in the absence of settlement of claim of Shri Uttam Singh by M/s Oriental Insurance Co., CCIC has filed a ‘Consumer Complaint” against M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, praying for recovery of the claim amount. I hereby undertake that in case the above matter is not settled in the Court by the time the undersigned superannuates from the services of CCIC in 2018, the requisite amount may be recovered from the dues payable to me, including gratuity amount, at the time of my retirement. Sd/- (Ashok Kinra) Company Secretary”
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, except to baldly submit that the said undertaking was taken under duress, was unable to show any document or any action objecting or challenging such undertaking registered by the appellant with the competent authority of the respondents or any other authority. Thus, the said submission is unacceptable.
11. We find from the undertaking that the appellant had undertaken to the respondents that the requisite amount, being the subject matter of a consumer complaint, maybe recovered from the dues payable to him at the time of retirement in case the said matter was not settled. It appears that in pursuance thereto, the said amount was recovered from the terminal benefits at the time of retirement of the appellant in the year 2018. Intriguingly, even after such amount was recovered from the terminal benefits of the appellant in the year 2018 on his superannuation, no objection or any legal recourse was undertaken by the appellant till the year 2023. It was only in the year 2023 that the appellant had preferred the underlying writ petition. The judgement was rendered by the learned Single Judge on 02.07.2024 allowing the reimbursement of the claim but not granting any interest thereon. Notwithstanding the fact that the consumer complaint covered under the undertaking dated 12.12.2016 has still not been disposed of, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing the respondent no.1/CCIC to pay the amount of Rs.2,54,946/- to the appellant within a period of six weeks from date.
12. We are unable to accept the claim of the appellant on interest for the reason that it was the appellant himself who approached the Court of law after 5 years of such recovery from the terminal benefits. Having regard to the fact that delay is squarely attributable to the appellant, the question of grant of any interest whatsoever is untenable. This observation read with the recitals of the undertaking leave us in no doubt that the appellant has no sustainable claim either on the interest or the costs/compensation on purported harassment and mental agony the appellant claims to have suffered.
13. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith the pending applications, if any.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ SEPTEMBER 15, 2025