Dismissed

The Deputy Development Commissioner v. Ram Sewak Mandal

Jharkhand HC18 Jan 2024LPA/208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State authorities challenged a writ direction to pay interest on retiral benefits released nine years after an employee's superannuation. The Division Bench held that prompt payment of retiral benefits is a duty and its delay violates Article 21, upheld the 7% interest direction relying on a Supreme Court decision, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Deputy Development Commissioner Vs Ram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶3

L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023

¶4

(with I.A. No. 4505 of 2023)

¶5

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District – Sahibganj.

¶6

The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District – Sahibganj.

¶7

The Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District – Sahibganj.

¶8

--Respondents/Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Ram Sewak Mandal, son of Late Amrit Mandal, aged about- 67 years, Resident of North Colony, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. and District – Sahibganj. -Writ Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

The State of Jharkhand.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District – Sahibganj. -Respondents/Performa Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶15

--------For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II

¶16

¶17

18^th January 2024

¶18

Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

¶19

I.A. No. 4505 of 2023

¶20

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶21

This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for

¶22

condoning the delay of 99 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶23

After going through the averments made in the interlocutory application and being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant, the delay in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned.

¶24

I.A. No.4505 of 2023 is allowed.

¶25

L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023

¶26

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1931 of 2018 whereby the learned writ Court has directed the appellants to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of post

¶27

-2-

¶28

L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023

¶29

retiral benefits due to the fact that there has been a delay of nine years in making the payment.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned order has submitted that there was a departmental proceeding initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner and arising out of the same incident a criminal case was also instituted against him. The respondent-writ petitioner retired on 31.07.2010 but he was acquitted in the criminal case only on 22.04.2017. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that no punishment in the departmental proceeding has been inflicted upon the respondent-writ petitioner as no order of punishment has been brought on record in the writ proceeding. However, it is not in dispute that during pendency of the writ petition, the appellants released the retiral benefits to the respondent-writ petitioner and for which appropriate affidavit was also filed in the writ proceeding. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the writ records, the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner could not be processed on account of absence of the service book which was ultimately submitted vide letter dated 08.12.2017. The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the direction to pay interest on the retiral benefits is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶31

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the respondentwrit petitioner had superannuated with effect from 31.07.2010 and he was not paid the retiral benefits and ultimately during the pendency of the writ petition, the retiral benefits were paid to him in the month of June, 2019, after a delay of nine years. Vide letter dated 08.12.2017 the respondent-writ petitioner annexed a copy of the service book and stated that he was not in possession of his original service book. There is no justification found in the records for not releasing the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner who had retired as back as on 31.07.2010. This Court is of the considered view that retiral benefits is the right of a retired employee and it is the duty of the appellants to ensure that the retiral benefits are promptly paid. Nonpayment of retiral benefits has a direct bearing on right to life leading to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court is also of the considered view that the learned writ Court has rightly referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of “State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari” reported

¶32

-3-

¶33

L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023

¶34

in (2021) 11 SCC 543 , wherein it has been held that delay in paying the retiral benefits will attract interest. The payment of interest @ 7% p.a. for the delay in payment of the retiral benefits is by way of compensation for delayed payment of money arising out of the retiral benefits.

¶35

This Court is of the considered view that the learned writ Court has rightly exercised power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the writ Courts are also Courts of equity. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No.1931 of 2018 does not call for any interference. L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023 is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)

¶37

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶38

Manoj/-

The Deputy Development Commissioner v. Ram Sewak Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Deputy Development Commissioner v. Ram Sewak Mandal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Dharmappa Vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Sri Jitendra Deo Sinha Vs Shambhu Nath Sahay

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Padma Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand

Atibir Industries Company Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Chiranjive Kumar Chourasia Vs Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Atibir Industries Company Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Chiranjive Kumar Chourasia Vs Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)