In this writ petition, the High Court held that a petitioner is entitled to interest on withheld pensionary benefits despite the Central Administrative Tribunal's refusal, as the delay was attributable to the department and the employee was not at fault.
Respondents directed to pay interest at 9% per annum on the petitioner's retiral benefits.
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.
$~7
% Date of Judgment : 07.12.2015 RAM KISHAN ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Anjana Gosain and Mr. Vishu Agarwal, Advocates for UOI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
W.P.(C) 9767/2015
Page 1 of 5
Technician. He claims that he had an unblemished record with the Department of CGHS. A week prior to his retirement on 25.09.2007, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Article of charge was served upon the petitioner with Imputation of misconduct. List of documents and list of witnesses were provided to him. The petitioner filed his reply on 07.10.2007. Till his retirement, no report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 26.11.2009. Reliance is placed on the observation of the Enquiry Officer which read as under :
“These provision of the rules are not met and hence it is not possible to hold a complete and perfect enquiry. I therefore return the case to disciplinary authority with the observations as made above”
“10. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the applicant , vide charge memo dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure A/2), and all other actions taken by the respondent-departmental authorities against the applicant pursuant thereto, including the purported disagreement note dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure A/4), are quashed. The respondents are directed to release all the retirement benefits to the applicant, after adjustment of Government dues, if any, within a period of three
W.P.(C) 9767/2015
Page 2 of 5
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any interest on the retirement dues to be paid to the applicant in terms of this order within the period stipulated as above.
11. In the result, the OA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.”
8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be deprived of his retiral benefits which were due to him since the year 2009. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. : AIR 2008 SC 1077.
W.P.(C) 9767/2015
Page 3 of 5
were to be released to him in the year 2009 or at least after the passing of the order by the Tribunal in August, 2015.
“.............The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 'bounty' is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
W.P.(C) 9767/2015
Page 4 of 5
Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : 2014 (9) SCALE 78, in para 4 held that :
“4. 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 employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary 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 as 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 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.”
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 07, 2015
sc
W.P.(C) 9767/2015
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee is entitled to interest on withheld sty pfena ruary benefits after quashing of departmental proceedings.
Whether statutory or administrative guidelines are required to award interest on pensionary dues delayed by the employer.
Whether the High Court can award interest under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution in the absence of specific rules.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.Explained¶24
S. K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. : AIR 2008 SC 1077 · Who else cites this
V. K. Sareen Vs. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶13
V. K. Sareen Vs. Union of India & Ors. : 187 (2012) Delhi Law Times 483
D. D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.Followed¶37
D. D. Tewari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : 2014 (9) SCALE 78
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Kishan
Union of India
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhir Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
