The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 625 of 2022 Manita Ajita Lakra, wife of Late Anand Mohan Gua Hembram, Resident of – Village – Kursibasa, Tambo, P.O. – Chaibasa, P.S. – Sadar, District – Singhbhum West, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner V e r s u s 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Chaibasa, District – Singhbhum West. 4. The Principal, St. Xavier Middle School, Lupungutu, P.O. – Baraguria, P.S. – Sadar, District – Singhbhum West, Jharkhand. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate For the State Mr. Amandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to GP-I … … Respondents 06/16.10.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the amount i.e. Rs.5,13,000/- and odd, which was paid to her in the year 2021 in compliance of order dated 03.12.2018, passed in W.P.(S) No. 304 of 2015. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the Memo No. 1179, dated 30.07.2022 [Annexure-7]. 3. This case has got checkered history. Earlier petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3610 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2006. Thereafter, when the orders and directions of this Court was not complied with, petitioner preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 400 of 2010, which was dropped vide order dated 18.06.2012 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Thereafter, petitioner again
Decision
approached this Court vide W.P.(S) NO. 304 of 2015 which was disposed of on 03.12.2018 with specific direction, which reads as under: RC 1 “5. In view thereof, according to considered view of this Court that the matter require afresh consideration by the authority in light of annexure-9 and for that the matter needs to be remitted before the authority concerned and accordingly this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa to consider the case of the petitioner afresh regarding his entitlement as B.Sc. Trained Scale with effect from 01.03.1995 as per Annexure-9 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order” 4. It was specifically observed that the District Superintendent of Education, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa shall consider case of the petitioner afresh regarding his entitlement as B.Sc. Trained Scale with effect from 01.03.1995 as per Annexure-9 within a period of six weeks. It was further observed that if petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, the monetary benefits be extended within a period of four weeks from the date of decision. It is case of the petitioner that though petitioner has been extended the benefits but interest which has accrued to him from 01.03.1995, has not yet been extended. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked door of this Court. 5. Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned counsel representing petitioner vehemently argues that petitioner is entitled for the interest as delay has occurred on part of the respondents and she cannot be made to suffer for the same. Learned counsel further argues that it is an admitted fact that petitioner has been extended the benefits since her claim has been found to be genuine with effect from 01.03.1995. Respondents admits that claim of the petitioner was genuine and have already paid the benefits. 6. Mr. Navneet Toppo, AC to learned GP-I opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and emphatically argues that in no way petitioner is entitled for the interest. As per order and direction of the Hon’ble Court, the benefits have already been extended to her within the stipulated period. Learned counsel submits that since benefits have already been extended, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no quarrel to the fact that petitioner was entitled for the benefits with effect from 01.03.1995 and the same has been paid to her in the year 2021 itself. When benefits have already been extended to the RC 2 petitioner and the same has not been disputed, which was considered with effect from 01.03.1995, this Court is of the view that petitioner is also entitled for the interest for that period. The stand of the respondent-State that the delay was there on part of the petitioner or the petitioner has already been paid as per direction of the Court, is not acceptable to this Court, rather, it is totally misconceived and misplaced. The benefits accrued to the petitioner are not the bounty to be disbursed at the sweet-will of the Authorities. It is the Constitutional and fundamental rights of an employee to receive the retiral benefits, if there are no legal impediment. Due to lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the petitioner has been subjected to hardship and has suffered monetary loss which makes the respondents liable to pay interest on the due amount at an appropriate rate to compensate the petitioner. 8. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 held as follows:- “… … pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment (to the employees)’. 9. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 held as follows:- “6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionery benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 8% per annum both on the amount of RC 3 pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.” 10. Similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 237 wherein it is held that salaries and pensions are "rightful entitlements" of government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with interest at an appropriate rate. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment is reproduced herein below: “13. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees 10 of the State. The State Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While the respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate. 14. We accordingly order and direct that in substitution of the interest rate of 12% per annum which has been awarded by the High Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall pay simple interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account of deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days from today. ………” learned counsel for 11. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 594 [W.P.(S) No. 872 of 2021] and while allowing the said writ petition, this Court has directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment with a further rider that if the amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of RC 4 said order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount fallen due to the petitioner till date of actual payment. 12. Considering aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court directed to pay interest to the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 6232 in 2022 [Sri Pandey Janardan Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand and others]. 13. In the instant case, the respondents admits that deceased-husband of the petitioner was entitled for the benefits as B.Sc. Trained Scale with effect from 01.03.1995. Unfortunately, because of his sad demise, he could not avail the fruits. When widow has approached this Court, the benefits were extended to her but without any interest. Considering aforesaid aspects, this Court cannot take any other view than what has already been taken in aforementioned cases. 14. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to pay entire benefits within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment on the benefits paid belatedly i.e. from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 5