(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the relevant records. and issue a writ in the Nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% P.A. on the amount of Rs.32,019/- released in September 2012 and the interest calculated for the period from 07.01.1978 to September till 2013 which comes to Rs.68,049/-. B issue a direction to the respondent to pay costs and compensation to the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case by filing repeated writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court and etc.,)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

          a. "Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% P.A. on the amount of Rs.32,019/- released in September 2012 and the interest calculated for the period from 07.01.1978 to September till 2013 which comes to rs.68,049/-.

          b. Issue a direction to the respondent to pay costs and compensation to the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case by filing repeated writ petitions before this hon'ble court.

          c. Issue any other incidental or consequential relief/s as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in aid of the main relief sought for, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.S. Kamate, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. The history of the case need not be narrated in detail. It would suffice to consider the petitioner's claim in the aftermath of the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench and the Division Bench. The petitioner was not awarded the stepping up of pay to which he was legally entitled. This led him to file W.P. No.68302/2010, which was allowed with a direction to step up his pay and release the arrears. The order did not restrict the period for which the petitioner would be entitled to arrears

4. Therefore, KPTCL approached the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.6052 of 2011. The Division Bench modified the order in the following manner:

          "7. We have perused the papers as well as endorsement at Annexure-M. Indeed Annexure-M would indicate that the principles of natural justice are made applicable to, the employees and law of limitation would be made applicable to them inasmuch as if it is pointed out that the employee was at fault who did not lodge his legitimate claim within a reasonable time. In the case on hand, it is brought to our notice that the petitiorier was before this Court for the first time way back in the year 1990. This Court however, directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Corporation seeking the monetary benefits. The grievance of the Corporation is that the said representation is given in the year 2000. But however, that by itself cannot be said that there was a laxity on the part of petitioner or that he was indolent in lodging the claim. The fact is that, he was before this Court way back in the year 1990 itself would indicate that the petitioner was agitating his rights. It is also to be noticed that the Corporation is required to consider claim de-hors any if an employee is representation inasmuch as legitimately entitled to certain monetary benefits, they cannot wait for the employee to lodge the claim and then consider it. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has followed the decision rendered by another learned Single Judge, which has attained finality. As observed the endorsement/circular issued by the Corporation itself would come to the aid of the writ petitioner. It is also to be noticed that petitioner again before this was once Court W.P.No.21344/2001, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the Corporation to consider earlier representation and subsequent order of this Court, whole considering the limitations, in terms of the Circular dated 21.5.1997. We note tlidt the 1997 Circular is subsequently substituted by another Circular at Annexure M dated 17th June 2004. We are of the view that order of learned Single Judge does not call for interference.

          No merit. Appeal is rejected."

5. The Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the petitioner would be entitled to arrears of salary only for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The petitioner accepted the said modification and received the stepped-up pay. He later filed the present petition in the year 2016 claiming interest on the stepped-up pay, not merely for the said three-year period, but for his entire service from 1978 till the date of payment.

6. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to seek interest on such payment. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench granted interest, that too from 1978 till the date of superannuation.

7. In the absence of any such direction in the earlier orders, the claim of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. The petition lacking in merit thus stands disposed of.