Partly allowed

Khima Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2011CW/625/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired police carpenter, challenged failure to pay retiral benefits. Court held administrative delay did not negate right to interest. Writ petition partly allowed granting 9% annual interest on delayed payment from due date under Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on delayed retiral benefits from due date until month preceding authorization within 30 days.

Khima Ram Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

SBCWP NO. 625/2011. Khima Ram Vs. State & Ors.

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

127 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 625/2011.

¶4

Khima Ram Vs. State & Ors.

¶5

Date of Order :: 3^rd November 2011.

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

¶7

Mr. Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. I.S. Pareek, Government Counsel, for the respondents. <<>>

¶8

BY THE COURT :

¶9

The petitioner, who retired from the post of Carpenter in the office of Superintendent of Police, Pali with effect from 31.01.2009, has filed this writ petition stating the grievance that for no fault or misrepresentation on his part, the respondents deprived him of the retiral benefits and failed to make the requisite payment despite service of notice.

¶10

The contesting respondents have filed the reply essentially with the submissions that the retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner after removal of the objections raised by the Pension and Pensioner's Welfare Department and after taking opinion from the Financial Advisor concerned. It is submitted that the petitioner has been paid the amount of GPF to the tune of Rs. 3,42,681/- under the bill dated 02.02.2009 and of Leave Encashment to the tune of Rs. 1,15,776/- under the bill dated 12.02.2009. The respondents have also referred to the relevant pension orders issued in relation to the petitioner. It is submitted that there had been queries and disputes about the pay-scale applicable to the

¶11

SBCWP NO. 625/2011. Khima Ram Vs. State & Ors. [ 2 ]

¶12

petitioner, who had earlier worked as a work-charged employee, particularly that in regard to the grant of selection grade and for that reason, the pension case of the petitioner was required to be re-sent to the Pension Department. It is submitted that anything of bona fide mistake does not create any right in any person; that the mistake in the present matter was rectified and the retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner; and the delay was caused due to “administrative process”.

¶13

The delay having been caused in the matter of payment of retiral benefits indisputably; and the delay having not been on account of any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of the procedure laid down, the petitioner is directly entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date the retiral beneifts became due till the end of the month preceding the month in which the benefits were authorised per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996.

¶14

The so-called delay in administrative process is hardly any reason or justification for delayed payment of the retiral benefits; neither the petitioner is responsible for the same nor could be deprived of his legal right of receiving the interest on the delayed payment. It is for the administrative department concerned to find out as to how and where the responsibility for delayed payment is to be fixed but so far the petitioner is concerned, his entitlement to receive interest remains unquestionable.

¶15

SBCWP NO. 625/2011. Khima Ram Vs. State & Ors. [ 3 ]

¶16

Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent and in the manner that the respondents shall make payment of interest per Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on the delayed payment of retiral benefits @ 9% per annum from the date such benefits became due until the end of the month preceding the month in which the benefits were authorised. The payment as required by this order shall be made within 30 days from today.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition.

¶18

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J .

¶19

/Mohan/

Khima Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khima Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

Mohammed Hussain Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Nandram Vs State

Samda Devi Vs State of Raj. and Ors.