Allowed

P. Venkata Rao v. The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/6383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held eligible for interest. The court found the delay in pension payment was attributable to the respondents due to prolonged disciproinal proceeding pendency. It directed the state to pay 8% per annum interest from the Supreme Court judgment date until actual payment.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay interest at 8% per annum from expiry of one month from the Supreme Court judgment date till actual payment.

P. Venkata Rao Vs The State of Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

[^321s 1

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.6383 oF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

P Venkat-a_Rao, S/o. Late p.Radhakrishna Murthy, Age. 76 years, Retd. Der Director ort rown' anJ ciu*;r'y ijE;r,ru, iilJ.Hl'il',ili1q.e 8onot17, canor,r rvagai:?* Street, New Bakaram, Hyderdbad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telanoana,. rep. by its principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban"Deveroprieni6epr'rtr"ni]56"r"tu.at, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Director of Town and Country planning, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

¶14

3 The Accountant General (A & E), State of Telangana, NI.J.Road, Hyderabad_ 500 004.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of [Vlandamus decraring the action of the respondents in not paying the interest on the derayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the petitioner as void, irregar, arbitrary and unconstitutionar and consequenUy direct the respondents to pay interest on derayed payment of pension, Gratuity and other pensionary benefits from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment is made at the rate of 10 percent per annum by taking into consideration of the judgment rendered by the Hon'bre supreme court of rndia

¶17

reported in LAWS^(SC) 2019⁽¹⁾ 245 dated^{021O112019as well as the orders} passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court^{reported in L.AWS (APH)} 2018 (8) Page 43,

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the.High Court may be pleased to} direct the 1't respondent to^{pay interest} on^{delayed payment of pensionand} pensionary benefits by taking into consideration of the^judgment rendered^{by the} Hon'ble Supreme Court of^{lndia reportedin LAWS (SC) 2019 (1) 245 dated} O2tO1l2O19 as well as the orders^{passed by the Division Benchof this Hon'ble} Court reported in LAWS^{(APH) 2018 (8) Page 43 pending disposal of the above} writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{S. JAGADISH}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.¹ & 2: GP^{FOR SERVICES}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI K. BALAKRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

)

¶25

HON'BLE SMT. TIUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶26

Writ PetitionNo .6383 of 2O2r

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandqmus to declare the action of respondents in not paying the interest on the delayed paSrment of pension and pensionar5r benefits to the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently, to direct the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension, gratuity and other pensionary benehts, from the date of retirement of the petitioner, till the date of actual payment of pension at lOoh per annum by taking into consideration the judgment dated O2.Ol.2Ol9 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Keutal Singh Panesart as well as the orders of the Honble Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of A.p. and others Vs. .I(. Stana kd and to pass such other order or orders.

¶29

'^{LAws(scf 20} tg lll 24s 'LAwS (APH) 20r8 (8) 43

ffi

L-

The brief^{facts leading to the hling of the present writ} petition are^{that while the petitionerwas workingas} Deputy Director^{of Town and Country Planning at A'C'} Guards, Hyderabad,^{he was placed under suspensionin} the year^{1996 on the a-tlegations of committingcertain} irregularities^{while he was inoffice and thereafter} disciplinary^{proceedingswere initiated against him by the} respondent^{authorities. Later' inthe year t999} '^the petitioner was^{reinstatedinto service. Subsequently, there} was no^{progress in the disciplinaryproceedings' In the} mealtime,^{the petitioner retired fromservice on 31'08'2003} on attaining^{the age of superannuation'However'on the} ground that disciplinary^{proceedingswere pending against} the petitioner,^{he was only releasedthe provisionalpension} in the month^{of October 2OO3' Thereafter'the disciplinary} proceedings were^{prosecuted by the petitionerand} ultimately the^{matter has been decided by the Hon'ble} Supreme Court^{on 17.O4.2O14 and later, the respondents}

¶34

¶35

have taken a decision to drop the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the year 2Ot6. Basing on the dropping of disciplinar5r proceedings, the pension and other pensionar5r benefits were paid to the petitioner in the year 2019. It is submitted that the delay in payment of pension even after the decision of the Honble Supreme Court is not attributable to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed pa5rment of pension from the date of retirement of the petitioner and not from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶36

Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Services appearing for respondents No.l & 2. perused the materia,l placed on record.

¶37

The learned Government pleader for Services appearing for respondents No. I & 2, while supporting the contention of the petitioner, submitted that initially the \ petitioner has been paid provisional pension due to the

¶38

¶39

I I I 1

¶40

pendency^{of the disciplinary proceedingsagainsthlm and} when^{the disciplinary proceedings were dropped against} the^{petitionerin the year 2016 pursuant to the decision of} the^{SupremeCourt orr 17 'O4'2O14'pension and pensionary} benefrts^{were paid to the petitioner in the year 2Ol9' lo} that^{process' some delay was occurred in paymentof} pension^{on the part of the respondents'} and^the 5.^{Having regardto the rival contenbons} material^{placed on record' this Courtfinds that after} retirement^{of the petitioner, there was a deray in releasrng} the^{pension and pensionary benefrts by the respondents'} However,^{the delay has occurred due to pendencyof the} disciplinary^{proceedingsagainsthim and the matter was} 17.O4.2Or4^bY Court^on finalised^{bY the SuPreme} dismissing^{the S.L.P' After that at least' the respondents} ought^{to havetaken a decisionfor grantof the pensionand} pensionary^{benefitsto the petitioner expeditiously'}

t i

It appears that the respondents have dropped the disciplinary proceedings pending against the^{petitioner in} thq year 2016 alter dismissa-l of the^{S.L.P. by the Supreme} Court on 17.04.2014 and payment of the^{balance of the} pension and pensionar5r benefits was made in the^year 2019. The disciplinary proceedings were^{kept pending for} years together and in spite of specihc directions^{by the} Courts, the respondents have not^{concluded the enquiry.} The orders passed by the Tribunal^{were carried up to the} Hon'ble Apex Court by the respondents^aldthe respondents have ultimately^{releasedthe pension only after} lapse of nearly 16 years from the^{date of retirement of the} petitioner. Therefore, the detay in. releasing^pensionis attributable to the respondents, for^{which the petitioner} cannot be deprived of his legitirnate right^{of claiming} inttrest on delayed pa)ment of^pension. -

¶46

Under these circumstances, this^{Court is of the} opinion that the petitioner is eligible^{for interest on the}

¶47

E-\ '=.,r
<br><br>

¶48

¶49

delayed payment^{of pension and pensionar5rbenefits from} the date of^{judgment of the Supreme Court i'e',on} 17.04.2014 in this^{case. The respondents are hereby} directed to^{pay interest on the delayed payment of the} balarrce of the^{pensionto the petitionerat 8o/o per annum} from the expiry of^{one month from the date of judgment of} the Hon'ble Supreme^{Court till the date of actual pa5rment} of pension, within^{a period of six weeks from the date of} receipt of a copy^{of this order. The Government should} scrupulously follow^{the instructions/circulars, if any, on} the issue of payment^{of interest on the delayed paymentof} pension and pensionarY^benefits.