The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 963 of 2023 Sunil Baran Chatterjee, son of Late Fakir Chandra Chatterjee, Resident of Behind UCO Bank, Luby Circular Road, Hirapur, Dhanbad. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 2. Director-in-Chief, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. Superintendent, SSLNT, Government Hospital, Telephone Exchange Road, Dhanbad. 4. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 5. The District Treasury Officer, Dhanbad. … … … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioner : For the State :
Legal Reasoning
paid to him. Being aggrieved, petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4196 of 2015 which travelled up to Hon’ble Division Bench. A direction was given to the respondents to consider claim of RC 1 the petitioner and pay the amount of pensionary benefits for which he was entitled for. 4. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the actual payment was made on 26.04.2022 i.e. after order passed by this Court on 26.02.2018. Since interest on the entire benefits has not been paid to the petitioner for which he was entitled for on 31.05.2003 itself, i.e. the date of superannuation, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing through VC strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. Learned counsel submits that the delay was on the part of the respondents and not the petitioner. It is the respondents who compelled the petitioner to move the Court and after order of the Court, the payments were made though not as per entitlement of the petitioner. Due to the order passed by the respondents, petitioner was made to suffer and as such irreparable loss caused to the petitioner has to be compensated by way of interest on the delayed payment. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the Judgment rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 594 and further submits that in view of settled legal proposition, petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. 6. Mr. K.K. Bhatt, AC to learned SC-I vehemently opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has already been paid entire benefits for which he is entitled for. In the counter affidavit itself it has clearly been mentioned that nothing remains to be paid to the petitioner and question does not arise for payment of anything more. Learned counsel however fairly submits that a decision is yet to be taken whether petitioner is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment. 7. Having gone through rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that admittedly petitioner was entitled for retiral-cum-pensionary benefits in the year 2003 i.e. on 31.05.2003 which is the date of retirement. Petitioner was entitled for the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Revision but the same was not extended to him on RC 2 the ground of illegal and wrong orders passed by the respondents on 28.08.2008 and it was only after direction of this Court on 28.06.2018, the respondents paid the benefits though interest was not extended without any valid reason. The payments were made taking into consideration 5th Pay Revision and not 6th and 7th Pay Revision though petitioner is entitled for the benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Revision also. 8. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court as to whether an employee is entitled for the delayed payment on account of delay at the hands of respondents. The Hon’ble Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 SCC 492 wherein it has been held as under: “… … … 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)’. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari 9. (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Harayana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 has held as under: It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from “6. 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 pensionary 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 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 the case of State of Andhra Pradesh V. Dinavahi Lakshmi RC 3 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. In the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687, similar view has been reiterated. Thus, it is now settled proposition of law that if delay is on part of the respondents, admittedly the employee cannot be faulted with and the same has to be compensated by way of interest on delayed payment. 11. In view of legal proposition set to rest, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed payment. The respondents are directed to calculate entire amount and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. 13.
Arguments
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate [Through V.C.] Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate Ms. Adittee Dungrawat, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatt, AC to SC-I 10/29.10.2024 2. Heard the parties. Petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for fixation of pension after granting benefits of 6th and 7th Pay Commission and to release the arrears thereof with interest @12% per annum from the date it fell due till the date of actual payment. 3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Clerk on 17.07.1965 in Sri Sri Laxmi Narain Trust Eye Hospital, Dhanbad and thereafter was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on 28.05.1981. After taking over of SSLNT, Dhanbad by the Government, the petitioner’s pay was fixed on 16.06.1989 in the pay scale of Rs.880 – 35 – 1370 EB – 35-1510. Petitioner superannuated from the service on 31.05.2003. After his superannuation, petitioner claimed for retiral benefits including pension but the same was not
Decision
Pending I.A. also stands disposed of. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 4