Allowed

S. Harischander, Hyd v. Prl Secy, Revenue (Regn-I) Dept, Hyd and 4 Ot

Telangana HC17 Nov 2023WP/1838/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a retired officer seeking a declaration that the delay in releasing pension and terminal benefits was arbitrary. The court directed the respondents to pay simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of retirement until actual payment.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on pensionary benefits from date of retirement (30.06.2008) till date of payment (24.06.2016).

S. Harischander, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Revenue… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

WR]T PETITION NO: 1838 OF²⁰¹⁷

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Harischander, S/o. Late Sudarasanam,^{aged 66 years, Occ Sub Registrar} / Superintendent^(Retd),Rl/o H.No.1-7-111^{38, J.S.N.Colony, Street No.8,} Habsiguda, Hyderabad -500 007

¶9

...'ET,T,ONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Though its^{Principal Secretary, Revenue(Regn-l)} Department, Sedretariat, Hyderabad^{- 500 O22}

¶12

Coinmissioner and lnsp-ector^General of^{Registration and, Slamps'} Telangana, Nizamshahi Rbad, Registration^{Bhavan,Hyderabad- 500001}

¶13

J. The Deputy lnspector General^(R &^{S) Ranga R9!!y E-ast, Hyderabad,} Reqistratiori Bhavan, Moazam Jahi^{MarketHyderabad 500 001}

¶14

Th5 Deputy lnspector General^(R &^{S) Registration,Bhavan,M J.Market} Hvderabad 500 001

¶15

E The Accountant General Telangana, Saifabad,^{Hyderabad5O0022}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiledtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue appropriate order or direction or more^{particularlya writ in the} nature of Mandamus declaring the^{inaction on the part of the respondentsin not} sanctioning interest on^{pension,on delayed paymentof arrears of pension,} retirement^gratuity, commutation^{value of pension and the terminal benefit is} arbitrary and contrary to law and^{unco nstitutionaI and violatlve of article1 4, 16} and 21 of Constitution of lndia and^{direct the respondentsto grant interest} @ 18o/o p annum from the date of^{retirement till the date of actual payment along} with exemplary costs

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AMARA^{RAMA RAO}

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to4: GP FORREVENUE/}

¶20

AGP FOR SERVICES^II

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.5: GP FORGENERAL ADMINISTRATION}

¶22

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2OI7

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present writ petition is filed praying to grant the following

¶29

relief:

¶30

"...to issue appropriate order or direction or morc particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring thr: in:rction on the part of the respondents in not sanctionin6l interest on pension on delayed paymcnt of arrears of pension, retirement gratuity, commutation va-lue of pension and the terminal benefit is arbitrary and contrarJr to law and unconstitutional ald violative of Articles 14, 1ti and 21 of Constitution o[ India and direct the respondetrts t.o grant interest^(@ l8o/o per annum from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment along wrth exemplary costs and pass... "

¶31

The brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition are as under:

¶32

2.1. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in l:he year 1969 by DSC, Nizamabad and was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1983. Petitioner was further promoted as Sub-Registrar Grade-ll in the year 1989 and Sub-Registrar Grade-l in the year 2OO1 and ultimately, retired on 30.06.2OO8. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after his retirement from service vide G.O.Ms.No- 167 Revenue (Vig-VI) Department dated 04.O2.2009 in gross violation of Rulc 9(2)(b)(i) of APRp Rules, t980 (for shorr,

¶33

1,,\A,J h'.P l:o 1818,^{)t l}

¶34

¶35

Rules, 1980) apart from violation of sub-rrles (3) and (4) of rule 2O of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'Rules, 19911 for alleged incident said to have taken place before 16.02.2001.

¶36

2.2. Aggrieved by the above proceedings, petitioner hled O.A.No.2695 of 2012 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (APAT) with a specific contention that order dated O4.O2.2OO9 is in gross violation of Rule 9(2)(bxii) of Rules, 1980, as per which, departmental proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. In the instant case, the alleged tampering of record had taken place prior to 16.07.2007. Therefore, very initiation of disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. The lst respondent had imposed 1O07o cut in pension permanently^vide G.O.Rt.No. 138 Revenue (Vig.VI) Department, dated 29.OL.2O13.^The Hon'ble APAT allowed the said O.A., by order dated 22.17.2013 and set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 138 Revenue^{(Vig.VI) Department} dated 29.01.2013 with further direction to release full^{pension and} also pensionary benehts to the petitioner as^per the^rules.

¶37

2.3. The petitioner hled C.A. in O.A.No.2695 of 2Ol2^{since the} orders dated 22.11-2013 were not complied with.^{Subsequently, the} respondents released the pensionary benefits on^24.06.2O16. Petitioner irled Review in M.A.No.565 of 2014^{in O.A.No.2695 of 2Ol2} praying for sanction'of interest on arrears of pension and^other

¶38

¶39

l '"t J h P no.l338 o.f )017

¶40

¶41

penslonary benefits from the date of eligrbility till the date of payment. However, Hon'ble APAT vide order dated 24.04.2015 dismissed the review observing that there was no rnaterial error manifest on the face of the order. Petitioner, therefore, frled the present writ petition for grant of interest @ 18% per anrlum from the date of retirement till date of actual payment along with exemplary costs.

¶42

Respondent no.3 hled counter and contended that on due consideration of gravity of issue, Government framecl charges against the petitioner as per Rule 9(2XbXI) of the Rules, 1980 ar-rd same were not in violation of Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 20 of the Rules, I991. The charges framed against the petitioner were proved in enquiry and accordingly, punishment of 100% cut in pension permanently was imposed against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.138, dated 29.Ol.2Ol3 by the first respondent. In the light of the orders dated 22.17.2013 passed by the APAT in O.A.No.2695 of 2OL2, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were released.

¶43

The charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and all the steps were taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest possible and delay if any occurred was not in the hands of the disciplinary authority or the Government and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for payment of lgoh on the pensionary benefits and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

--_-,.--

...J

Lt"A ,r P.no.t't9 o(,).1t7 4

¶48

Petitioner hled additional affidavit arrd placed on record the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay L.Mehrotra and State of U.P. and others^I and also the judgment dated 11.02.2015 rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.33212 of 2Ol4 in support of his contention for payment of interest.

¶49

Heard learned counsel Sri A.Rama Rao for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll

¶50

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2008 and the departmental proceedings u'ere initiated on 04.O2.2OO9, which are in gross violation of Rule 9(2)(b[i) of the Rules, 1980. He further submitted that as per the above rule, the departmental proceedings shail not be instituted after expiry of fotir years from the date of such incident. In the present case, admittedly, departmental proceedings were initiated on O4.O2.2OO9 in relation to the alleged tampering of records, which took place prior to 16.07.200l and ttrerefore, the proceedings are much beyond four years as stipulated in Rule 9(2XbXi) of the Rules, 198O. The Hon'ble APAT vide order dated 22.11.2013 in O.A.No.2695 of 2Ol2 had set aside the impugned order

¶51

'^(zoor)g scc osz

¶52

¶53

L,"1J u'P .\o.183,\ oI20l 7

)

dated 29.O1.2O13 and directed the respondenl.s to release full pension and pensionary benefits and said orders are complied with and pensionary benefrts were released on 24.06.2016 i.e., after 8 years from the date of his retirement, for which petitioner is entitled to interest.

¶58

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il submitted that petitioner had tampered the documr:nts while he was working as Sub-Registrar of Hayathnagar and did not protect the important permanent records and therefore, Government framed charges against the petitioner and in the enquirv, conducted, the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and therefore, Government had awarded punishment of lOO% cu1_ in pension permanently. He further submitted that Hon'ble AP,{T while allowing O.A.No.2695 of 2Ol2 did not award the interesr and further, the review M.A. filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the ApAT. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for interest and writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶59

The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on pension and ot-her pensionary benefits2

¶60

Consideration:

¶61

Perusal of pleadings and material shows that respondent no.I initiated departmental proceedings against the pctitioner on

¶62

II, ,t'.?.,'o l8J8 g'7!¹⁷

¶63

¶64

O4.O2.2OO9 and^petitioner filed^O.A.NI.2695 of^{2Ol2 before the} Hon'ble APAT. Subsequently, [hc Government^{i.e-, lst respondent} awarded punishment of 100%^{cut in pensionpermanently during the} pendency of O.A. The Hon'ble APAT, on due consideration of material and Rule^g(2xb[ii) of the Rules 198O as^well as^{merits of the charges} framed against the petitioner, had set aside the^{samevideorder} dated 22.11.2O13. Respondents did^{not preferany appealagainst} the said order, therefore,^{the order of Hon'bleAPAT setting aside the} G.O.Rt.No.138, dated 29.O1.2013^{has become l-rnal. The respondents} released the pension and other^{pensionary benefits on 24.06.2016,} pursuant order of Hon'ble APAT, dated^22.11.2013

¶65

Learned counsel for^{petitioner strenuously arguedthat there} was delay of 8 years in release of^{pension and other terminalbenehts} to the petitioner. He further submitted^{that initiationof departmental} proceedings are contrary to Rule^g(2xb[ii) of the^{Rules,1980 and} therefore, respondents are^{responsiblefor delay inpayment of} pensionary and other^{pensionary benefitsand therefore,petitioneris} entitled to interest for the^{delayed period.}

¶66

In Vijay L.Mehrotra^{(supra),the Hon'ble Apex Court held that} in case of an employee^{retiring after having renderedservice,it is} expected that all the^{payment of retiral beneltts shouldbe paidon the} date of retirement or soon^thereafter, if^{for someunforeseen} circumstances the payment could not be^{made on the date of}

u', u" ,ttii')i)l

I )

retrrement. Jn the above case, there rvas considerable delay ln paymen t of retirement ben efits without any reason orJustification for such delay and therefore, the Honble Apex Cor-rrt awarded simple interest @ 1g% per annum from the date of retirement tiil the date of payment

¶73

13' The learned counsel for petitioner arso reried upon the decision of Hontrle Division Bench of the composite High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.p.No.33 212 of 2014, whereiH the Hon,ble Division Bench upheld the order of the Tribunal in awarding interest @ 10% per annum for the delayed period in payment o[ pension. In the above case, employee retired from service in the year 2OOZ and charge-memo was issued in the year 2OO9 arr discip.linary proceedings were initiated. However, Governmen t dropped the disciplinary proceedings in the year 2013, but, I he pensionary benefits were not released. In the above factua.l background, the Tribunal awarded lOyo interest per annum for the dela,r-ed period and the same was held by the Hon,ble Division Bench.

¶74

14' In the present case, the disciprinary proceedings were initiated contrary to Rure g(2)(b)(ir of the Rures, tggo and rhe szrme were set aside by the Hon,ble ApI "*u'""'^{whichno appeal} was preferred by the Govemment and ,n,tt' orders passed by the Hon'ble APAT has become final. The ..ti...| nent benefits of the petitioner wrjre released

¶75

¶76

LNA.J n't'.o tBJs oI )ii? 8

¶77

on 24.06.2016,^which is^{beyondeight years from the date of} retirement of^{the petitioneri.e., 30.06.2008'}

¶78

In the light of^{above factualbackgroundand the decision of} Hon'ble Division^{Bench of composite High Courtof Judicature for the} State of Telangana^{and the Stateof AndhraPradeshin W'P'No 33212} of 2Ol4 as^{well as decisionofHon'ble Apex Court inVijaY} L.Mehrotra^{(suPra), this Courtis} of the considered^{view that} petitioner is entitled^{to interestand point is accordingly answeredin} favour of the^petitioner.

¶79

Conclusion:

¶80

In the result,^{Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents} to pay simple^interest @^{9o/oper annum from the dateof retirementof} the petitioner i.e.,^{30.06.2O08till the date of payment of actual} payment r.e., 24.06.2016,^{within a period of eight weeks from the} date of receipt^{of copy of this order'There shall be no order as to} costs.

¶81

t7 Pending miscellaneous^{applications if any shall standclosed}

¶82

\ \

¶83

That Rule Nisi his^{beenmade absolute as above'} it;il;;;in"'n.";ur"^{rt e'Cttiet} 'tustice^{ALoK ARADHE} '^{on This Fridav'The} ;;;;;t;""ttt^{o"v of November Two Thousand And Twentv Three}

¶84

SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGIS'RAR //rRUE coPY/'

¶85

aEcrroN6rrrcen

¶86

To, Revenue^{(Regn-l) Department, Secretariat,} 1 . The^{PrinicPalSecretary'} Hyderabad^-5OOO22

¶87

¶88

The commissioner and lnspector Generar of Reqistration and. Stamos. -^{Telangana, Nizamshahi Road, Registration Bhavan, tiyderabad - 500 00i --'} 3. The Deputy_lnspector Generat .(E -& S) Ranga R6dOy East, Hyderabad, Registration Bhavan, Moazam Jahi Markei Hvdeiabad 500 OO1

¶89

4 The Deputy_ lnspector General (R & S) R6gistration, Bhavan, tVt J.Market Hyderabad 500 001

¶90

The Accountant General Telangana, Saifabad, Hvderabad 5OO 022 6. One CC to SRI. AMARA RAMA RAo, Advocate [OeUC1 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court ior the'State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶91