Radhey Shyam Pandey, aged about 72 years, son of Late Kailash Pati Pandey, resident v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2279 of 2024 Radhey Shyam Pandey, aged about 72 years, son of Late Kailash Pati Pandey, resident of C/o Sri P.K. Srivastava, Ram Janki Path, North of Kali Mandir, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna. Versus … … Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. The State of Jharkhand. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. … Respondents … --- CORAM :HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
move this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 56 of 2022. The respondents have filed their show cause in the contempt application stating therein that the interest on the delayed payment of entire pensionery benefits as well as house rent allowance has been extended to the petitioner. Therefore, vide order dated 15.09.2023, the contempt proceeding was dropped, with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of law available to him for claiming other balance amount towards interest. Though the respondents have paid interest on the delayed payment of entire pensionery benefits as well as house rent allowance, but no interest on delayed payment of ACP benefits has been extended, which was legally admissible to the petitioner. Hence, only for claiming interest on the delayed payment of ACP benefits, the petitioner has once again approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 5. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though most of the amount for which the petitioner was entitled to, along with statutory interest, have already been paid to him, but still interest on delayed payment of ACP benefits was not paid, for which the petitioner is legally entitled to. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a retired employee and the ACP benefits for which he was entitled to have been extended after much delay, which would certainly carry interest, and as such, if a direction is given to the respondents to pay interest on account of delayed payment of ACP benefits, it would be beneficial to him. 6. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that since the entire amount has already been paid along with interest, the contempt application preferred by the petitioner was dropped. The petitioner has already retired and received most of the amount for which he was entitled to. However, it is an admitted position that ACP benefits were paid after some delay. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire records, the case of the petitioner needs 2 consideration. Admittedly, the entire benefits along with interest for which the petitioner was legally entitled to, have been extended to him, in the light of order dated 08.09.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 420 of 2020. It is also not in dispute that 1st ACP and 2nd ACP benefits have been extended to the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1999 vide Notification no. 1648 dated 29.03.2017. It is also equally true that monetary benefits thereof have been paid to the petitioner on 14.03.2018. There is much delay in extending the benefits of ACPs and this fact has not been denied by the respondents also. 8. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Dr. A. Selvaraj Vs. C.B.M. College & Ors, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 627, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if a public servant is entitled to for any monetary benefit / upgradation, the same is to be granted in favour of such public servant without any delay and if there is any delay, the consequential benefit in terms of money is required to be paid along with interest. 9. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 237 held that salaries and pensions are rightful entitlement of government employees and in case of delay, they should be paid with interest. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulation, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, this Court held that the petitioner is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of ACP benefits. As such, the respondents are directed to calculate the amount of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment and pay the same to the petitioner, at the earliest, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that after payment of interest on the delayed payment of ACP benefits, the petitioner shall not claim any further amount. 12. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed. Aditi (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 3
Arguments
Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate 09/27th November 2024 --- 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, upon going through the records, submits that instead of Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which is order dated 08.09.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 420 of 2020, he rely on the order dated 08.09.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 420 of 2020, which has been brought on record by the respondents at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 2. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is claiming interest on the delayed payment of 1st and 2nd ACP benefits extended to him with effect from 09.08.1999 vide Notification contained in Memo No. 1648 dated 29.03.2017 and monetary benefit has been extended with effect from 14.03.2018. 4. This case has got a chequered history. Petitioner has earlier preferred W.P.(S). No. 420 of 2020 with a prayer for grant of statutory interest on delayed payment admissible to him on account of entire pensionery benefits including ACP benefits and house rent allowance from 05.05.2000 to 05.07.2006, as the petitioner has been fully exonerated from the charges. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court vide order dated 08.09.2021 directed the respondents to pay the interest on the entire pensionery benefits as well as house rent allowance from the date it fallen due till the date of actual 1 payment. The said order was challenged by the respondents in LPA No. 385 of 2024, wherein, the order of the Writ Court was affirmed holding therein that payment of interest on the delayed payment over the legally admissible dues and payment of house rent allowance while the petitioner was posted at Ranchi are fully justified. When the aforesaid order passed by the Writ Court was not complied with at the ends of the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to