* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CM APPL. 4667/2010 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 13245/2006
&
CM APPL. 4666/2010 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 13245/2006
Judgment delivered on: July 19, 2010.
B.S. MATHUR ....PETITIONER
THROUGH: Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate with
Mr. Nimish Raja, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS
THROUGH: Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Advocate
with Ms. Anisha Jain, Advocate for the
respondent No.3.
Mr. Jatan Singh, Advocate, CGSC for
UOI.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI,J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 4667/2010 (EXEMPTION) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 13245/2006 Exemption allowed, subject all just exemptions. The application stands disposed of.
+CM APPL. 4666/2010 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 13245/2006
1. This application is moved by the petitioner for clarification/modification of orders dated 7th January, 2008 passed in the Writ Petition (C) 13245/2006. The grievance of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition was against non-payment of the pension and gratuity. The petitioner was retired on 19th July, 1972 after attaining the age of superannuation. He ran from pillar to post claiming his pension which CM APPL. 4667/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 Page 1 of 4 & CM APPL. 4666/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 was denied to him only because of some inter se disputes between the two governments namely State of Rajasthan on the one hand and Union of India on the other hand.
2. In the orders dated 7th January, 2008, it was specifically noted that neither respondent nos. 1 to 3 nor respondent no.4 has denied that for the period of service rendered by the petitioner in International Airport Authority and in the PWD, Rajasthan he was entitled to pro rata pension from the said respondents. The Writ Petition in these circumstances, after following the judgment of Supreme Court in Praduman Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (1994) 28 Administrative Tribunals Cases 70 was disposed of with the following directions:-
"In these circumstances we dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent no.4 to process the case of the petitioner for pro rata pension on the basis of the record and the documents produced inasmuch as he has served respondent no.4 or for that purpose respondent no.3 Respondent no.4 shall initiate and process the case within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and forward the same to respondents 1 to 3 as well and the entire process shall be completed within three months from today. The pension shall be appropriately fixed on this basis and arrears of pension as well as other retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from today."
3. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, though pension and arrears of pension was released to the petitioner, he has not been awarded any interest on the inordinate delay in payment of legitimate dues of pension to the petitioner. The gratuity amount was released to the petitioner and on that amount interest has been awarded by the respondents themselves. Under these circumstances, present application is filed for issuance of directions to the respondents to calculate the interest on the arrears/outstanding dues of pension released to him belatedly and pay the same. He has claimed interest at the same rate at which interest on gratuity is paid to him.
4. We may refer at this stage that after the aforesaid orders dated 7 th January, 2008 were not complied with immediately. In these circumstances, the petitioner was CM APPL. 4667/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 Page 2 of 4 & CM APPL. 4666/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 forced to file Contempt Case 513/2008 making a grievance that the respondents had not released his pension as well as interest. During the pendency of those contempt proceedings, though the pension amount was released, interest was not paid. The contempt petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 9 th February, 2010 observing that in so far as the payment of interest is concerned, there is no specific direction in the orders dated 7th January, 2008 passed by the Division Bench.
5. On that basis, submissions of Mr. Jatan Singh is that this application is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner did not approach the Court earlier by seeking such modification and instead he filed the contempt petition. Needless to mention that the petitioner was under the impression that when there is a delay in making the payment of pension, he would be granted interest there upon as well. That would not mean that the petitioner has no right to file application in the Writ petition seeking modification.
6. In a case like this, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be compensated by payment of some interest on the outstanding amount of pension which is released to him more than 35 years after his retirement. As mentioned above, the petitioner stood retired from service on 19th July, 1972. He could ultimately get his pension amount only in the year 2009 after orders dated 7th January, 2008 were passed. He is a senior citizen. The Supreme Court has, time and again, held that pension is not a bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees but a valuable right of such a retired employee. It has also been held that right to interest on delayed payment of pension is statutory right and the same constitutes the consequential benefits and retiral benefits of the pensioner. Following observations of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 are worthy to quote:-
"Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govt. to its employees on their retirement but have become under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof CM APPL. 4667/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 Page 3 of 4 & CM APPL. 4666/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment".
7. Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of the opinion that there was an inadvertent slip in the orders dated 7 th January, 2008 by not mentioning the award of interest to the petitioner on the belated payment of pension.
8. We accordingly direct the respondents to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of pension. The interest shall be calculated and paid to the applicant within two months.
9. CM stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
(A.K.SIKRI) JUDGE (REVA KHETRAPAL) JUDGE JULY 19, 2010 skb CM APPL. 4667/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006 Page 4 of 4 & CM APPL. 4666/2010 in WP (C) 13245/2006