Tej Narayan Singh v. ………
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 3222 of 2022 Tej Narayan Singh ---------- Versus ………. Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi. 2. The Director of Agriculture, Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The District Horticulture Officer, Dumka. 4. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Facts
05/ 25.04.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : :
Legal Reasoning
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.” 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: the employees and are payable
Arguments
Mr. Abhishek Shrivatava, Advocate Mr. O.P. Tiwari, GP-III Mr. A.K. Dubey, AC to GP-III ---------- 2. Petitioner has confined his prayer at this stage for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel that petitioner retired on 31.07.2004 and the entire retiral benefits have been extended to the petitioner in the month of December, 2011. There is gross delay of 7 years in making the payment and as such, petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that already petitioner has been extended pensionary benefits in the year 2012 and he is not entitled for any interest. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, petitioner retired on 31.07.2004 and the retiral benefits were extended to the petitioner in the year 2012. In the instant case, petitioner is not aggrieved by fixation of pension, however, nothing has been explained by the respondents regarding delay of 7 years in making payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. 6. The respondents have tried to impress this Court that delay was not on the part of the respondents and as because pension papers were 1 submitted in the year 2012 itself and as soon as the respondents received the same, they fixed the pension of petitioner and extended the retiral benefits to him. 7. The said stand of the respondent-State is not acceptable to this Court, rather, it is totally misconceived and misplaced. The pensionery benefits 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. Nothing has been brought on record to show that either a criminal case or a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. 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:- “1.(the) 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 (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Harayan 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 is a to exercise miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid its appellate jurisdiction there 2
Decision
“14. 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 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 learned counsel for 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. 15. 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. …………………………………..” 3 9. In view of the aforesaid logical sequitur, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent No. 2 to calculate interest @ 6% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment was made. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. kunal/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4