The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6232 of 2022 Sri Pandey Janardan Prasad Sinha … … Petitioner - V E R S U S – 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Director of Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education (Chotanagpur Division), Ranchi 7. The District Education Officer (Gumla), Simdega 8. The District Treasury Officer, Simdega 9. The District Treasury Officer, Ranchi … … Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner For the Respondents For the Accountant General: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate Ms. Abha Kumari, Advocate Mr. K.K.Singh, SC-V : 10/29.04.2024 2. Heard the parties. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay statutory interest for delayed payment as
Decision
mentioned in para-1 of the writ petition. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel that the petitioner, who was working as headmaster, retired in the year 1998. The entire retiral benefits were paid to him in piecemeal right from the year 2005 to 2019 and as such he is entitled for statutory interest on the delayed payment. Petitioner is a 86 years’ old person and because of delayed payment, that too without interest, he has suffered a lot. Learned SC-V argues that delay was not on part of the respondents rather petitioner had approached belatedly. Entire benefits have already been paid to him and as such nothing remains to be adjudicated. Admittedly, petitioner retired in the year 1998 and the entire 4. 5. benefits were paid in piecemeal up to 2019. RC 1 W.P.(S) No. 6232 of 2022 6. The stand of the respondent-State that the delay was there on part of the petitioner 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. 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. 7. 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)’. 8. 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 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.” RC 2 W.P.(S) No. 6232 of 2022 9. 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: “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 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. ………” 10. 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 said order, the RC 3 W.P.(S) No. 6232 of 2022 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. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the respondents are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment on retiral benefits from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this 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. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 4 W.P.(S) No. 6232 of 2022