The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5187 of 2022 1. Lilawati Akhaury 2. Dr. Gyan Prakash Sharan 3. Dr. Rajpati Kumar Sinha 4. Dr.(Mrs) Anju Sinha 5. Dr. Ram Briksha Sahu 6. Dr. Pandey Ravi Bhushan Prasad 7. Dr.Jai Narayan Pandey 8. Hansa Sharan Versus ... ... ... Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Under Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 6. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. ... Respondents With W.P.(S). No. 725 of 2023 1. Dr. Lal Mani Prasad, 2. Dr. Medha Varta Sharma 3. Dr. Krishna Kumar 4. Dr. Vijoy Kumar Sinha 5. Mrs. Madhu Sinha 6. Mrs. Sulochana Sharma ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Under Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 6. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. with W.P.(S). No. 1255 of 2023 … … ... Respondents 1. Dr. Amal Chaudhary 2. Dr. Binoda Nand Tripathi ... ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Under Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Vice-Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 6. The Registrar, Ranchi University, Ranchi. 1 … … ...Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioners For the State For the University
Legal Reasoning
--------- : Mr. T.N. Mishra, Advocate : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate. : Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. :Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV :Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate --------- 11/05.08.2024 Heard the parties. 2. 3. 4. The petitioners, who are retired teachers of Universities and Colleges, have approached this Court for grant of benefits under 7th PRC with effect from 01.01.2016 in place of 01.04.2021 with other consequential benefits and interest thereupon. It is specific case of the petitioners that in view of letter no. 306, dated 09.03.2022, the benefits under the 7th PRC has been extended to the retired teachers of the Colleges and the Universities with effect from 01.04.2021 whereas the same benefits to other employees of the State Government has been uniformly extended with effect from 01.01.2016 irrespective of the fact whether they are in service or retired. Mr. Tapeshwar Nath Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that in a most discriminatory and arbitrary manner, the petitioners have been deprived from the benefits of 7th PRC with effect from 01.01.2016. It is pointed out that on earlier occasion also during the regime of 6th PRC the Government has extended the benefits under the 6th PRC to the retired teachers of Universities and Colleges with effect from 31.03.2010 in place of 01.01.2006. Meaning thereby, they have been deprived from the benefits of pension revision for almost 51 months and by the intervention of this Court, the same was directed to be extended to those teachers with 6% statutory interest vide Judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3962 of 2016 wherein a specific direction was passed to the respondent authorities to consider case of all the retired teachers of the Colleges and the Universities for extending the benefits of 6th PRC with effect from 01.01.2006 and not from 31.03.2010. Learned counsel further submits that in compliance thereof, due Notification was also issued by the Government of Jharkhand extending the benefits to the beneficiaries with effect from 01.01.2006 with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date it had fallen due till the date of actual payment. Learned 2 counsel further brings notice to the Court that repeatedly the University and the Government are trying to deprive the retired teachers from their genuine and legitimate expectations to get the revision of pension at par with the other employees of the State including the working teachers of the same Universities and/or Colleges. It is further submitted by learned counsel that to the utter surprise to petitioners, the retired teachers of Bihar Agriculture University, Ranchi have been extended the benefits of 7th PRC w.e.f. 01.01.2016 vide Gazatte Notification dated 03.08.2022 but in case of petitioners, though they are similarly situated to the retired teachers of Bihar Agriculture University, Ranchi, benefits of 7th PRC has been postponed/ forfeited for 63 months in a most illegal and arbitrary manner which is against the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel lastly submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate direction may be passed in order to grant aforesaid benefits to the petitioners so that at their fag end they may not be deprived from the fruits of fixation of pension from due date i.e. 01.01.2016 and they may be appropriately compensated by way of statutory interest against the delayed payment. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners are old and ailing retired teachers and as such appropriate directions may be passed to the respondents for extending the relief as prayed for. 6. From the order dated 29.04.2024, it appears that the respondents were directed to consider case of the petitioners. Earlier, a stand was taken that already Directorate of Higher Education vide letter No. 100, dated 19.01.2024 and letter No. 230, dated 13.02.2024 had sought information from the Finance Department regarding expected financial burden if the benefits under the 7th Pay Revision is extended to the retired teachers with effect from 01.01.2016 itself. 7. Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to learned AAG-III; Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to learned SC-VII and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to learned SC-IV appears on behalf of the respondents – State. Common arguments have been advanced on their behalf. Learned counsel submits that a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel draws attention towards paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the same and submits that matter is pending approval of the Cabinet. Para-8, 9 and 10 reads as under: -. 3 “8. That the answering respondent states that after receiving the financial burden statement and carrying out necessary corrections/modifications, the file was forwarded to Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand for its principal approval. 9. That the answering respondent states that the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand has given its principal approval. 10. That the answering respondent states that the same is under process of getting approval of the State Cabinet and upon such approval, necessary orders to that effect shall be issued without any further delay.” 8. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appear on behalf of the University. Learned counsel submits that the University has no role to play in extending the benefits of pay revision. It is the State who has to take a decision regarding implementation of pay revision from a particular date. As and when the State accords its approval, the University shall pass necessary orders to extend benefits under the 7th PRC to the petitioners without any further delay. 9. From the pleading made in the writ petition as well as in counter affidavit and the arguments advanced by the parties, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is under active consideration of the State and is pending approval of the Cabinet. The matter has already been approved by the Finance Department in principle and the process of getting approval of the State is in the way and upon such approval, necessary orders shall be passed to that effect. 10. It is well settled law that pension is not a bounty. The pensionary provision must be given in liberal construction as a social welfare measure. The very basis for grant of such pension is to facilitate retired government employee to live with dignity in his/her winter of life and thus such benefits shall not be unreasonably denied to a retired employee. Admittedly, the provisions of 7th PRC has been implemented uniformly to all the Government employees, whether retired or not, with effect from 01.01.2016. In case of Universities/Colleges, the same has been unreasonably and without assigning any reason, has been extended, with effect from 01.04.2021 and as such the retired teachers of the Universities/ Colleges have been deprived from the fruits of pension revision for almost 63 months. 11. So far as claim for payment of statutory interest accrued upon arrears of revised pension is concerned, this Court is of considered view that due to discriminatory approach adopted by the respondent-State, the petitioners 4 have been subjected to hardship and have suffered monetary loss which makes respondents liable to pay interest on the due amount at an appropriate rate to compensate the petitioners. The issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court it its Judgment dated 08.02.2021 in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and anothers Vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari [Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021 arising out of SLP(c) No. 12553/2021)], 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 hereinbelow: “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 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 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. …………………..” 12. This Court dealing with similar issue in case of W.P.(S).No. 3962 of 2016 (Jharkhand Retired University Teachers Association
Decision
& Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), disposed of on 22.03.2021, 5 reiterated the same view and directed to pay interest on delayed payment in arrear of pension. 13. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore vide its Judgments dated 20.02.2024, in the case of Dr. Sunil Holkar and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in W.P. No. 3552 of 2024, has held in page-6 as under: “ … … … Thereafter comes to the question of entitlement of interest over the arrears of pension. The interest over a particular monetary claim is ordinarily granted where it was found that the claim due under the law was wrongfully denied. Thus, just to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss owing to the devaluation of currency and the delayed grant of justice from the period of arising of cause till the grant of relief, Courts do grant interest.” 14. In view of specific averments made in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit and in view of the admitted fact that the matter has already been approved by the Finance Department of the State and is pending approval of the Cabinet and the orders and Judgments passed in such matters, this Court find it fit to dispose of the matter with a direction to the respondents to do the needful. Since it has fairly been submitted that after approval from the Finance Department, the matter is awaiting Cabinet approval, suffice it would be to direct the respondent No. 2 to take all endeavor to get approval of the Cabinet for extending the benefits under 7th PRC with effect from 01.01.2016 with statutory interest @6% p.a. from the date it has fallen due till the date of actual payment. It is made clear, after approval of the Cabinet, the appropriate funds be released by the State to the Universities concerned for extending the benefits, as aforesaid. It is made clear that all the consequential benefits be also granted to the petitioners as per their entitlement with statutory interest @ 6% per annum from the date it fell due till the date of actual payment, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Needless to say, the State and the University shall do the needful in coordination with each other within a reasonable period of time and the benefits be extended to the old/ ailing petitioners at the earliest so that they may be able to get fruits of pension revision in their life time. 15. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are hereby disposed of. RC/Kunal (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.) 6