O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited &amp; Others
S. K. Gambhir, an advocate of this Court to give a report on the amount which would be payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 by taking the assistance of a chartered accountant in the matter of computation of compensation to be paid to Bhandari under that decretal order. Shri S. K. Gambhir, having given his report along with calculation sheets which reflect the amount payable to Bhandari under the said decretal order, the C.M.P.s were listed for orders before us 4. On behalf of Bhandari it was submitted by his learned counsel that 3.33 years salary including admissible allowances awardable to Bhandari under the decretal order made by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 did represent merely the salary payable to him in lieu of reinstatement but not the arrears of salary payable to him between the date of termination of his service and the date of the order of this Court made in the civil appeal. Therefore, according to him, non-inclusion of such arrears of salary by Shri S. K. Gambhir in his report as the amount of compensation payable to Bhandari under the decretal order, was an obvious error. It was also submitted that Shri S. K. Gambhir should have included the amount of interest payable to Bhandari on the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement which was undisputedly not paid by the ITDC5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ITDC though did not dispute the amount of compensation calculated by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable to Bhandari on the basis of 3.33 years salary including admissible allowances he pointed out an arithmetical error which had occurred in arriving at the figure of Rs. 1, 41, 980 in adding the amounts payable to Bhandari on account of Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, C.C.A and H.R.A. According to him, the total of the said four items should have been only Rs. 1, 28, 800 and not Rs. 1, 41, 980 and, consequently, the amount payable to Bhandari towards compensation calculated on the basis of 3.33 years salary would be Rs. 1, 28, 800. He, therefore, requested us to effect the necessary correction in the amount payable to Bhandari in that regard. He, however, wanted us to deduct out of the total amount of compensation payable to Bhandari a reasonable amount of rent which would become payable by Bhandari three months after the judgment of this Court made in the civil appeal, within which time Bhandari had to vacate the hotel room belonging to the ITDC in his occupation 6. Having perused the report of Shri S. K. Gambhir and the calculation sheets produced along with the report and considering the submissions made by both learned counsel of Bhandari and the ITDC, we accept the amount quantified by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, subject to the arithmetical error to be corrected in addition, as pointed out on behalf of the ITDC. On the other hand, we are of the view that the claim made on behalf of Bhandari for arrears of his salary in addition to the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is untenable. So also, the claim for interest is untenable. But, we are not able to accede to the request made on behalf of the ITDC as regards the compensation claimed for hotel room in occupation of Bhandari. The reasons for our views are these7. The decretal order to which we have adverted to, is in the nature of a decree made in the appeal. The decretal order does not say that if Bhandari is paid 3.33 years salary in lieu of his reinstatement he should, along with that salary, be paid salary which would have become payable to him from the date of his termination order till the date of the order of this Court. Indeed, the decretal order does not envisage the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination of service of Bhandari till the date of the order of this Court independently of the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of his reinstatement becomes clear, from the fact that clause II of the decretal order specifically states that the amount of compensation equal to 3.33 years salary including allowances made payable thereunder covers the full period commencing from the date of termination of his service till the date of payment. Thus the first submission made on behalf of Bhandari as to the separate claim for his arrears of salary from the date of termination of his service to the date of the order of this Court, is devoid of merit8. As regards the interest claimed from the ITDC for non-payment of the amount of compensation payable by the ITDC in lieu of reinstatement, we feel such interest which might have been ordinarily payable cannot be ordered to be paid, for Bhandari is in occupation of a room in the hotel of ITDC without payment of rent, even though he was not entitled to continue to occupy after he ceased to be in their service9. The submission made on behalf of the ITDC that a correction is required to be made in the amount of compensation because of the arithmetical error which has occurred in adding certain figures, has to be accepted as such error is apparent. Hence the total amount payable as per calculations of 3.33 years salary including the allowances under clause II, ought to be Rs. 1, 28, 800 instead of Rs. 1, 41, 98010. Insofar as the compensation claimed on behalf of the ITDC for the hotel room in the occupation of Bhandari is concerned, the same cannot be granted since in our view, this amount could be regarded as that set off against the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of compensation which would have otherwise become payable
1[ds]6. Having perused the report of Shri S. K. Gambhir and the calculation sheets produced along with the report and considering the submissions made by both learned counsel of Bhandari and the ITDC, we accept the amount quantified by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, subject to the arithmetical error to be corrected in addition, as pointed out on behalf of the ITDC. On the other hand, we are of the view that the claim made on behalf of Bhandari for arrears of his salary in addition to the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is untenable. So also, the claim for interest is untenable. But, we are not able to accede to the request made on behalf of the ITDC as regards the compensation claimed for hotel room in occupation of Bhandari. The reasons for our views are these7. The decretal order to which we have adverted to, is in the nature of a decree made in the appeal. The decretal order does not say that if Bhandari is paid 3.33 years salary in lieu of his reinstatement he should, along with that salary, be paid salary which would have become payable to him from the date of his termination order till the date of the order of this Court. Indeed, the decretal order does not envisage the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination of service of Bhandari till the date of the order of this Court independently of the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of his reinstatement becomes clear, from the fact that clause II of the decretal order specifically states that the amount of compensation equal to 3.33 years salary including allowances made payable thereunder covers the full period commencing from the date of termination of his service till the date of payment. Thus the first submission made on behalf of Bhandari as to the separate claim for his arrears of salary from the date of termination of his service to the date of the order of this Court, is devoid of merit8. As regards the interest claimed from the ITDC forof the amount of compensation payable by the ITDC in lieu of reinstatement, we feel such interest which might have been ordinarily payable cannot be ordered to be paid, for Bhandari is in occupation of a room in the hotel of ITDC without payment of rent, even though he was not entitled to continue to occupy after he ceased to be in their service9. The submission made on behalf of the ITDC that a correction is required to be made in the amount of compensation because of the arithmetical error which has occurred in adding certain figures, has to be accepted as such error is apparent. Hence the total amount payable as per calculations of 3.33 years salary including the allowances under clause II, ought to be Rs. 1, 28, 800 instead of Rs. 1, 41, 98010. Insofar as the compensation claimed on behalf of the ITDC for the hotel room in the occupation of Bhandari is concerned, the same cannot be granted since in our view, this amount could be regarded as that set off against the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of compensation which would have otherwise become payable
### Instruction:
Predict whether the case will result in an affirmative (1) or negative (0) decision for the appeal, and then provide a thorough explanation using key sentences to support your prediction.

### Input:
S. K. Gambhir, an advocate of this Court to give a report on the amount which would be payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 by taking the assistance of a chartered accountant in the matter of computation of compensation to be paid to Bhandari under that decretal order. Shri S. K. Gambhir, having given his report along with calculation sheets which reflect the amount payable to Bhandari under the said decretal order, the C.M.P.s were listed for orders before us 4. On behalf of Bhandari it was submitted by his learned counsel that 3.33 years salary including admissible allowances awardable to Bhandari under the decretal order made by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986 did represent merely the salary payable to him in lieu of reinstatement but not the arrears of salary payable to him between the date of termination of his service and the date of the order of this Court made in the civil appeal. Therefore, according to him, non-inclusion of such arrears of salary by Shri S. K. Gambhir in his report as the amount of compensation payable to Bhandari under the decretal order, was an obvious error. It was also submitted that Shri S. K. Gambhir should have included the amount of interest payable to Bhandari on the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement which was undisputedly not paid by the ITDC5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ITDC though did not dispute the amount of compensation calculated by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable to Bhandari on the basis of 3.33 years salary including admissible allowances he pointed out an arithmetical error which had occurred in arriving at the figure of Rs. 1, 41, 980 in adding the amounts payable to Bhandari on account of Basic Pay, Dearness Allowance, C.C.A and H.R.A. According to him, the total of the said four items should have been only Rs. 1, 28, 800 and not Rs. 1, 41, 980 and, consequently, the amount payable to Bhandari towards compensation calculated on the basis of 3.33 years salary would be Rs. 1, 28, 800. He, therefore, requested us to effect the necessary correction in the amount payable to Bhandari in that regard. He, however, wanted us to deduct out of the total amount of compensation payable to Bhandari a reasonable amount of rent which would become payable by Bhandari three months after the judgment of this Court made in the civil appeal, within which time Bhandari had to vacate the hotel room belonging to the ITDC in his occupation 6. Having perused the report of Shri S. K. Gambhir and the calculation sheets produced along with the report and considering the submissions made by both learned counsel of Bhandari and the ITDC, we accept the amount quantified by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, subject to the arithmetical error to be corrected in addition, as pointed out on behalf of the ITDC. On the other hand, we are of the view that the claim made on behalf of Bhandari for arrears of his salary in addition to the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is untenable. So also, the claim for interest is untenable. But, we are not able to accede to the request made on behalf of the ITDC as regards the compensation claimed for hotel room in occupation of Bhandari. The reasons for our views are these7. The decretal order to which we have adverted to, is in the nature of a decree made in the appeal. The decretal order does not say that if Bhandari is paid 3.33 years salary in lieu of his reinstatement he should, along with that salary, be paid salary which would have become payable to him from the date of his termination order till the date of the order of this Court. Indeed, the decretal order does not envisage the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination of service of Bhandari till the date of the order of this Court independently of the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of his reinstatement becomes clear, from the fact that clause II of the decretal order specifically states that the amount of compensation equal to 3.33 years salary including allowances made payable thereunder covers the full period commencing from the date of termination of his service till the date of payment. Thus the first submission made on behalf of Bhandari as to the separate claim for his arrears of salary from the date of termination of his service to the date of the order of this Court, is devoid of merit8. As regards the interest claimed from the ITDC for non-payment of the amount of compensation payable by the ITDC in lieu of reinstatement, we feel such interest which might have been ordinarily payable cannot be ordered to be paid, for Bhandari is in occupation of a room in the hotel of ITDC without payment of rent, even though he was not entitled to continue to occupy after he ceased to be in their service9. The submission made on behalf of the ITDC that a correction is required to be made in the amount of compensation because of the arithmetical error which has occurred in adding certain figures, has to be accepted as such error is apparent. Hence the total amount payable as per calculations of 3.33 years salary including the allowances under clause II, ought to be Rs. 1, 28, 800 instead of Rs. 1, 41, 98010. Insofar as the compensation claimed on behalf of the ITDC for the hotel room in the occupation of Bhandari is concerned, the same cannot be granted since in our view, this amount could be regarded as that set off against the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of compensation which would have otherwise become payable

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
6. Having perused the report of Shri S. K. Gambhir and the calculation sheets produced along with the report and considering the submissions made by both learned counsel of Bhandari and the ITDC, we accept the amount quantified by Shri S. K. Gambhir as payable by the ITDC to Bhandari under the decretal order made in Civil Appeal No. 1969 of 1986, subject to the arithmetical error to be corrected in addition, as pointed out on behalf of the ITDC. On the other hand, we are of the view that the claim made on behalf of Bhandari for arrears of his salary in addition to the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is untenable. So also, the claim for interest is untenable. But, we are not able to accede to the request made on behalf of the ITDC as regards the compensation claimed for hotel room in occupation of Bhandari. The reasons for our views are these7. The decretal order to which we have adverted to, is in the nature of a decree made in the appeal. The decretal order does not say that if Bhandari is paid 3.33 years salary in lieu of his reinstatement he should, along with that salary, be paid salary which would have become payable to him from the date of his termination order till the date of the order of this Court. Indeed, the decretal order does not envisage the payment of arrears of salary from the date of termination of service of Bhandari till the date of the order of this Court independently of the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of his reinstatement becomes clear, from the fact that clause II of the decretal order specifically states that the amount of compensation equal to 3.33 years salary including allowances made payable thereunder covers the full period commencing from the date of termination of his service till the date of payment. Thus the first submission made on behalf of Bhandari as to the separate claim for his arrears of salary from the date of termination of his service to the date of the order of this Court, is devoid of merit8. As regards the interest claimed from the ITDC forof the amount of compensation payable by the ITDC in lieu of reinstatement, we feel such interest which might have been ordinarily payable cannot be ordered to be paid, for Bhandari is in occupation of a room in the hotel of ITDC without payment of rent, even though he was not entitled to continue to occupy after he ceased to be in their service9. The submission made on behalf of the ITDC that a correction is required to be made in the amount of compensation because of the arithmetical error which has occurred in adding certain figures, has to be accepted as such error is apparent. Hence the total amount payable as per calculations of 3.33 years salary including the allowances under clause II, ought to be Rs. 1, 28, 800 instead of Rs. 1, 41, 98010. Insofar as the compensation claimed on behalf of the ITDC for the hotel room in the occupation of Bhandari is concerned, the same cannot be granted since in our view, this amount could be regarded as that set off against the amount of interest on the unpaid amount of compensation which would have otherwise become payable
