Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Additional ... on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 695 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Additional Chief Secy.Deptt.Of Basic&Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ji Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
The petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2017 whereby petitioner's representation for grant of interest on the delayed payment of post retiral benefits has been rejected. Further prayer seeking a direction to the opposite party to sanction interest at the rate of 18 % per annum on the total financial benefit and arrears amount paid has been sought.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier being aggrieved by non-payment of time scale/ promotional pay scale/ financial up gradation under the relevant schemes, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.9293 (SS) of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.05.2016 directing the opposite party to consider petitioner's representation. It is submitted that in compliance of the aforesaid direction, and in the light of the Government Order dated 02.12.2000 and 05.11.2014, the petitioner was paid financial benefits thereof vide orders dated 23.01.2017, 25.01.2017 and 28.02.2017. It has been submitted that since the payment made to petitioner was delayed, he made a representation for providing interest on the delayed payment. Subsequently, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.13071 (SS) of 2017 for the said purpose, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2017 directing the concerned authority to decide petitioner's representation and in pursuance of which the impugned order has been passed rejecting the representation.
It is submitted that petitioner was entitled for grant of promotional pay scale and other financial benefits in terms of Government Orders dated 02.12.2000 and 05.11.2014 but the said benefits were actually paid to the petitioner only in the year 2017. It has been submitted that since delayed payment has been made on account of the attitude of the opposite parties, petitioner is therefore entitled to interest upon the same. It has also been submitted that in similar circumstances, other similarly situated employees filed petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, which vide judgment and order dated 21.04.2015 allowed the grant of interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 8% and 10% respectively. The order dated 21.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No.324 of 2012 (Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others),order dated 10.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No.1365 of 2007(Prabha Shankar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), have been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit.
Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit submits that vide Government Order dated 29.08.2012, the State Educational Technical Institute U.P Lucknow was recognized as a Technical Unit of State Educational Research and Training Council and provided that the employees of the said organization would be treated as State Employees. It is stated that in accordance with the aforesaid Government Order, decision to approve and implement the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions was taken on 21.09.2012. It is stated that the petitioner's lien at that time was in his parent department i.e. the Department of Secondary Education, therefore his matter was referred to the parent department. It is submitted that thereafter all the remaining dues of petitioner were made available vide office order dated 23.07.2018 pertaining to 5th and 6th Pay Commission. It is therefore submitted that there was no delay in making payment of dues of petitioner due to which he is not entitled to any interest.
Considering the material available on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 21.11.2017, it is admitted between the parties that the petitioner was entitled to the payment of financial benefits for which purpose he had approached this Court earlier also and subsequent to direction issued by this court, the financial benefits were made available to the petitioner in the years 2017 and 2018. In the impugned order, it has been stated that the employees of the organization were granted State Government status vide Government Order dated 29.08.2012. It has also been stated that the petitioner's case for grant of financial benefits was referred to his parent department on 03.03.2014 since he had been granted promotion twice in the parent department. The impugned order states that subsequent thereto, financial benefits were made available to the petitioner without any further delay and therefore there is no occasion for payment of interest. It is thus clear even from the counter affidavit and the impugned order that petitioner was entitled to be financial benefits which were subsequently granted to him. Even taking averments made in the counter affidavit and in the impugned order into consideration, it is evident that the benefits granted to petitioner were in terms of Government Orders dated 02.12.2000 and 05.11.2014 although it may a matter to be decided by the authorities concerned as to whether such benefit was available to the petitioner prior to 29.08.2012 or not. Even otherwise, it is evident that petitioner was at least entitled to financial benefits in terms of the Government Order dated 29.08.2012 if not earlier.
The petitioner has annexed various orders of the Public Services Tribunal indicated herein above in which interest on delayed payment has been granted at the rates ranging from 8% to 10% per annum.
The Interest Act, 1978 clearly provides for payment of interest upon delayed payment made to a person whose claim is admitted. Even otherwise in case the financial benefits of petitioner were provided to him in time, it is but natural that after sending a part of which upon himself, the petitioner would have saved a portion of the said amount upon which naturally interest would be accrued as per the bank rate. As such, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of financial benefits due to him. Not awarding interest on the delayed payment, made to the petitioner, would amount to giving benefit to the opposite party of their own wrong.
In view of aforesaid, having found the petitioner entitled to interest on the delayed portion of financial benefits, a writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2017 (Annexure No.01). A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the competent authority to pass appropriate order granting interest to the petitioner at the rate of 8% per annum, granting parity to other claimants before the Tribunal, from the date petitioner is found entitled to the financial benefits which were actually paid to him subsequently. The recalculation and payment of interest shall be done by the competent authority within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :-06.07.2021
Subodh/-
[Justice Manish Mathur]
