This Court allotted a writ petition where the petitioner, having superannuated, claimed interest on delayed pension. The respondent admitted the delay without good cause. The Court directed payment of 12% interest and awarded costs.
Directed the respondent to pay 12% interest on delayed pension and awarded Rs. 25,000 as costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 52976 of 2017
Petitioner :- Yogendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Gaur,Babita Upadhyay,Chandra Jeet Yeadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
List has been revised.
Heard Ms.Babita Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State.
The petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.12.2014. His pensionary benefits were released on 31.05.2017. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has claimed interest on the delayed payment of pension. The petitioner has made a representation to the respondent-authority in this regard. The delay in payment of the pension has been admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit. No good cause has been shown by the respondents for the delay in releasing the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
The responsibility for the delayed payment of the pensionary dues consequently rests on the respondent-authority. The approach of the respondent-authority to the grant of pension of the petitioner has been callous and arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has long set its face against any delayed payment of retiral dues. The law on the point is consistent. The authorities, who are responsible for the delay in payment of the pension, are also liable to pay interests on the delayed payment. At this stage, it would be apposite to fortify the narrative with judicial
authority in point.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. Padmanabhan Nair , reported at AIR 1985 (1) SCC 429 emphasized that there should be no delay in payment in disbursal of the retiral dues to an employee who has superannuated from service. The interest was also awarded for delayed payment and negligence on part of the state authorities for not releasing the retiral dues in time. In the case of Capt. R.S. Dhull Vs. State of Haryana and others , reported at 1998 (4) SCC 379 the court awarded interest at the rate of 12% in the delayed payment of gratuity. In the issue of delayed payment the similar issue claimed attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and others , reported at 2001 (9) SCC 687 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated its consistent deprecation of delay in payment of retiral dues and awarded interest of 18% from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment. The consistency in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was reflected in the case of H.Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited , reported at 2003 (3) SCC 40 wherein for delayed payment of gratuity amounts the employee was awarded an interest. The employment was made liable to pay an interest at the rate of 10% of the delayed gratuity amount from the date it became payable till the date of actual payment of gratuity. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also followed by this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, registered as Writ Petition No.1133 (SB) of 2001 . This Court had directed the payment of interest to the extent of
10% from the date the petitioner became entitled to the date of actual payment of dues.
In view of the admitted position of facts and settled position of law, the respondentsauthorities are directed to pay an interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pensionary dues from the date the petitioner became entitled to receive his pension till the date of actual payment of pension. Since the interest on delayed payment is a matter of right and the same was admittedly denied by the respondents authorities, the petitioner consequently had to approach this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The miscarriage of justice to the petitioner so compounded by the arbitrary action of the respondents in denying him the interest to which he was entitled.
In such view of the matter, costs of Rs.25,000/(Twenty Five Thousand only) are imposed upon the respondents. The cost shall also be paid along with the interest amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Ashish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of pensionary benefits.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to costs for the arbitrary conduct of the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala and others Vs. Padmanabhan NairRelied on¶9
AIR 1985 (1) SCC 429 · Who else cites this
Capt. R.S. Dhull Vs. State of Haryana and othersRelied on¶9
1998 (4) SCC 379 · Who else cites this
Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶9
2001 (9) SCC 687 · Who else cites this
H.Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation LimitedRelied on¶9
2003 (3) SCC 40 · Who else cites this
Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶10
Writ Petition No.1133 (SB) of 2001
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yogendra Pal Singh
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
