This Regular Second Appeal concerns a claim for interest due to delay in disbursing pensionary benefits. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that financial difficulty does not justify delay and the respondent is entitled to interest damages under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Second Appeal dismissed; interest claim rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931
RSA.No. 256 of 2010()
--------------------AS.111/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM OS.56/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS
BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, STANDING COUNSEL
FOR KSEB
ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
K.NANDAKUMARAN KARTHA,
S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREERANGAM, PADINJATINCHERRY THEKKEMURI KARA, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A.No.256 of 2010
-------------------------------------Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Respondent retired as an Assistant Administrative Officer of appellant No.1 on attaining superannuation on 31.10.2002. Appellant No.2/defendant No.2 sanctioned his pensionary benefits to the tune of Rs.5,75,411/- on 4.12.2002 and authorised appellant No.4 to disburse the same but the amount was disbursed only on 5.7.2003. Alleging that on account of that delay he suffered loss respondent wanted appellants to compensate that loss and issued notice dated 29.10.2005. That was not favourably responded by the appellants and hence respondent filed O.S.No.56 of 2006 for realisation of interest by way of damages for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. Appellants resisted the suit contending that there was no deliberate delay in the disbursement of amount as that happened on account of financially difficult situation in which appellant No.1 was placed. It also relied on judgments of this Court in O.P.No.34188 of 2001 and the appeal arising therefrom (Exts.B2 and B1, respectively). Trial court was impressed by the contention of appellants and dismissed the suit. First appellate court held that respondent is entitled to get interest by way of damages during the time disbursement of the amount was delayed and accordingly granted a decree allowing realisation of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 4.12.2002 till 5.7.2003 on the pensionary benefits. That is under challenge in the Second Appeal urging by way of
RSA No.256/2010
2
substantial question of law whether respondent is entitled to get interest on pensionary benefits when there is a finding by the courts below to the effect that there is no culpable delay on the part of appellant No.1 in disbursing the pensionary benefits and whether in the light of Exts.B1 and B2 appellant No.1 is liable to pay damages. Learned counsel for appellants urging the above points contended that finding of the first appellate court is erroneous.
RSA No.256/2010
3
and B2 to justify the delay in payment of pensionary benefit. Exts.B1 and B2 directed that appellant No.1 should provide a portion of its revenue to honour its commitment to the retired employees. That does not in any way exonerate appellants from liability to pay interest by way of damages for delayed payment. It is also no answer to say that there was no culpable negligence on the part of the appellants. Question is whether respondent has suffered loss (and that is proved as pensionary benefits was sanctioned on 4.12.2002 but the actual payment was only on 5.7.2003) and whether there was any justification for appellants to delay payment. The Supreme Court in Vijay L. Mehrotra v.
State of U.P. and others (AIR 2000 SC 3513) stated that the retiral benefits are to be made available to the person concerned on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. In that case as payment was not made for months without any justification simple interest at the rate of 18% was ordered to be paid. In Dua S.K. v. State of Haryana and another (2008 (2)
ILR Kerala 677) the Supreme Court has held that pensioner is entitled to claim interest from the State on the basis of the statutory rules or administrative instructions and in its absence, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Going through the decisions referred supra and the judgment under challenge I am satisfied that first appellate court is legally
RSA No.256/2010
4
correct in directing payment of interest by way of damages on the amount from 4.12.2002 to 5.7.2003. No substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal requiring a decision.
Accordingly Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.
I.A.No.647 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondent is entitled to get interest on pensionary benefits when there is a finding that there is no culpable delay in disbursing the benefits.
Whether existing judgments absolve the State from liability to pay damages for delayed payment of pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P.Followed¶32
Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2000 SC 3513) · Who else cites this
Dua S.K. v. State of HaryanaFollowed¶33
Dua S.K. v. State of Haryana and another (2008 (2) ILR Kerala 677) · Who else cites this
O.P.No.34188 of 2001Distinguished¶25
3 provisions across 1 enactments
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
K.NANDAKUMARAN KARTHA
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
