Retired Tehsildar claimed interest on delayed pension payments following a departmental inquiry. The Court found the administrative delay justified the claim and awarded 9% interest for the relevant period.
Interest on delayed pension and retiral benefits at 9% per annum for the period from 13th August, 2015 to 10th February, 2017.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1096/2018
Mahendra Kumar Sharma Sonof Shri Chhoga Lal Sharma, Resident Of 132, Vidyut Nagar-A, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
11/12/2019
The petitioner retired from the post of Tehsildar on 31st May, 2012. By way of this writ petition, he claims interest on the delayed payment of his pension and retiral benefits.
Brief facts which require to be noticed are that at the time of retirement, there was a departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner which culminated in punishment of stopping 5% of his pension for five years vide order dated 24th February, 2015. Thereafter, the department issued “no dues certificate” on 13th August, 2015 and the actual payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits were released to the petitioner on 10th February, 2017.
(2 of 4)
[CW-1096/2018]
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after passing of the punishment order dated 24th February, 2015, the petitioner became entitled to other retiral benefits minus what had been stopped by the disciplinary authority. The delay in issuing “no dues certificate” and other formalities on the part of the respondents cannot be attributed to him and he would be entitled to receive interest in terms of Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, 1996 as well as Notification dated 29th July, 2016 for the period from 13th August, 2015 to 10th February, 2017 i.e. from the date, “no dues certificate” was issued.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that they have filed their reply and the delay for releasing pension and retiral benefits was not on account of any deliberate action of the department but due to all his formalities.
It is submitted that there were several inquiries which were initiated against the petitioner and as many as five punishment orders were passed against him. This resulted in not giving him benefit of Pay Scale Rules. The said Pay Scale Rules benefit was only available after “no dues certificate” was issued and his pay fixations were made whereafter the petitioner has completed the formalities of the pension kulak in 2016 and the petitioner’s pension has been accordingly released and other gratuity benefits have also been released on 10th February, 2017.
Learned counsel submits that the completion of these formalities for pension case of the petitioner, the respondents cannot be attributed for the delay and it is the petitioner who was to submit the certificate from the competent Medical Officer for computation and it is the petitioner who has submitted his pension kulak lately.
(3 of 4)
[CW-1096/2018]
Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 and submitted that delay in making payment of pension would entail interest. He has submitted that the Supreme Court has directed the High Court to decide the matter with regard to interest on retiral dues. He has also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. M.S. Abdulla, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 455 wherein the Supreme Court has granted interest on retiral benefits @12% per annum as there was delay of more than six months.
I have considered the submissions and find that the petitioner was not entitled to receive retiral dues when the department inquiry was pending. Once the same culminated in passing of the final order on 24th February, 2015, the department was required to expeditiously dispose of the pension matter of the petitioner within 60 days. No dues certificate has been issued by the department after the period of six months on 13th August, 2015 whereafter as is noticed from the reply, the pension matter of the petitioner has been keeping on shifting from one office to another for the purpose of different aspects relating to pay fixation and issuing of certificates under the Regulations. Ultimately, the pension and retiral dues have been released on 10th February, 2017 thus this court finds that there has been delay in releasing of the petitioner’s pension.
The circular of the State Government issued on 29th July, 2016 provides for grant of 9% interest if there is delay of more than 60 days in payment of the pension. The interest was to be released at the level of the administrative authority itself.
(4 of 4)
[CW-1096/2018]
However, this court finds that petitioner has to approach this court for grant of the same. Taking into consideration the circular dated 29th July, 2017 and the judgments as cited by learned counsel for petitioner, I am inclined to allow this writ petition and grant the petitioner interest on the delayed payment of pension and retiral dues including gratuity for the period from 13th August, 2015 to 10th February, 2017 @9% per annum. On all the arrears of pay, pension, gratuity and other benefits, the interest shall be paid to the petitioner now after calculation within a period of two months. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid within two months then interest of 15% on the interest so calculated shall be paid by the respondents for the delay from two months onwards and shall be reimbursed by the concerned officer who has found accountable for the delay in making payment.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
FATEH RAJ BOHRA /6-240
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed pension payment caused by departmental delay rather than petitioner's own delay.
Whether the State Government circular dated 29th July, 2016 mandating 9% interest on pension delays applies where the petition is filed before the administrative authority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.Referred¶25
(2008) 3 SCC 44 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Anr. Vs. M.S. AbdullaReferred¶25
(2006) 6 SCC 455 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahendra Kumar Sharma
State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
Board Of Revenue
Director, Pension And Pension Welfare Department
The District Collector, Alwar
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
