Dismissed

Mohammed Hussain v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2011CW/232/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that departments cannot withhold interest on delayed pension benefits while pursuing disciplinary action against defaulting officers. Liability to the pensioner is primary; recovery from defaulters is subsequent. The petitioner's petition was dismissed as infructuous after the respondent made the payment.

What did the court decide?

The respondent No. 4 was required to deposit Rs. 28,902/- to the Municipal Board within 30 days.

Mohammed Hussain Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

SBCWP No. 232/2010. Mohammed Hussain Vs.

¶2

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶3

[ 1 ] 125 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 232/2010. Mohammed Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

Date of Order :: 3^rd November 2011.

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

¶6

Mr. D.K. Gaur, for the petitioner. Ms. Pratishtha Dave, G.C., for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.P. Sharma, for the respondent No. 4.

¶7

<<>>

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

The petitioner, who retired from the services of the Municipal Board, Bhadra from the post of Lower Division Clerk on 31.05.1999, has filed this writ petition stating the grievance that after retirement, the respondents did not make complete payment of retiral benefits to him and certain payments were made in installments and ultimately, the remaining amount of retiral benefits was paid on 01.07.2004 but then, the respondents failed to make him payment of interest to the tune of Rs. 54,828/- for such delayed payment. The petitioner has further pointed out that he made the representations for making of such payment of interest whereupon, the orders were issued to the incumbents who were held responsible for different components of interest for the period they were holding the post of Executive Officer. The petitioner has stated the grievance that several times, the communications have been issued to such incumbents for making payment but he has been deprived of the due amount of interest on the ground that the respondents have not received the payment from the concerned officers.

¶10

SBCWP No. 232/2010. Mohammed Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶11

[ 2 ]

¶12

The stand of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in their reply has essentially been that three of the incumbents had made the payment of interest and only an amount of Rs. 28,902/liable to be paid by one Shri Prithvi Raj Jakhar has not been received and hence, could not be paid to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bhadra, has taken the stand that the respondents had fixed the liability on the concerned officers for delayed payment of retiral dues and that there was no fault on the part of the answering respondent. It has also been averred that the petitioner had already been paid an amount of Rs. 24,565/- towards interest on delayed payment and further an amount of Rs. 28,902/was being arranged to be recovered from the said Shri Prithvi Raj Jakhar and as soon as received, the same would be paid to the petitioner.

¶13

This matter was heard on 01.11.2011 and was placed for dictation of order. However, for the observations made during the course of hearing of the matter, the respondent No. 4 has taken the corrective steps and today, before commencement of dictation of order, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 handed over a cheque bearing number 7220 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Bhadra Branch, Bhadra in favour of the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 28,902/-. The cheque has duly been received by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶14

It is appreciated that the respondent No. 4 has seen the reasons and has taken the corrective measures and has made

¶15

SBCWP No. 232/2010. Mohammed Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶16

[ 3 ] payment as due to the petitioner who was not to be deprived of the same only in the name of pending proceedings for recovery from the concerned officer.

¶17

Not much dilatation on facts or any other issue appears requisite now but it does appear appropriate to observe that even when the administrative department concerned is entitled to fix the responsibility and even to take the disciplinary action against the person/s responsible for delay in payment of retiral benefits and to recover the loss caused to the Government due to payment of interest from such defaulting persons yet, such aspects, of fixing of responsibility, disciplinary action and recovery as against the defaulting persons, cannot be adopted as a pretext by the concerned department for withholding the payment of interest to the pensioner concerned. Such interest is envisaged to be paid under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and the liability to pay such interest arises only on account of delayed payment of retiral benefits. It would be rather a travesty of justice if such payment of interest for delayed payment of retiral benefits is itself delayed or deferred in the name of proceedings against the defaulting persons. In the true operation of Rule 89 ibid. , it is required of the concerned department to first make the payment to the pensioner concerned and then, to recover the same from the persons responsible.

¶18

This Court would have considered saddling the respondents with further interest over such delayed payment

¶19

SBCWP No. 232/2010. Mohammed Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶20

[ 4 ] of interest but looking to the fact that the respondent No. 4 has indeed made the payment before dictation of order, no further orders are being made in this matter.

¶21

However, one aspect does require calling for comments and observations. The officer concerned who has been sought to be held responsible for the delay in payment of retiral benefits had been in the service of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3; and he is sought to be held responsible for holding the post of Executive Officer in the concerned Municipal Board at the relevant time. So far the Municipal Board, Bhadra is concerned, though it has made the payment but obviously, shall have to be reimbursed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. It is for the said respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to ensure as to how they are able to affix the responsibility and to recover the amount but so far the Municipal Board is concerned, it is required of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that such amount of Rs. 28,902/- as paid by the Municipal Board to the petitioner be reimbursed to it within 30 days from today.

¶22

So far this writ petition is concerned, it can only be now treated as infructuous and is dismissed as such but with the requirements and observations aforesaid. No costs.

¶23

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J .

¶24

/Mohan/

Mohammed Hussain v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hussain v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gula Ram @ Gulab Chand Vs State

Ramchandra and Ors. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Smt. Alka Vaishnav and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Khima Ram Vs State and Ors.

Nandram Vs State

Samda Devi Vs State of Raj. and Ors.