Satish Rajdhar Patil vs The Union Of India And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 8 Bom

                                        1                           63-WP-5166-18.odt



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5166 OF 2018

Satish S/o Rajdhar Patil,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o : Ghursardi, Post Takli,
Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon.                          ... PETITIONER

        VERSUS

1.      Union of India.

2.      Major (Senior Record Officer),
        Sena Ayudh Corps,
        Abhilekh Karyalaya,
        Army Ordinance, Corps Records,
        (Pension Section), Post Box No. 3,
        Trimulgheery, Secundarabad.                     ... RESPONDENTS

                                    ...
Mr. L.V. Sangeet, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for respondents
                                    ...
                               CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                           S. G. DIGE, JJ.

DATE : 3rd JANUARY, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : S.V. Gangapurwala, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties the

matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner seeks interest @ 12% p.a. on the delayed payment

of disability pension.

3. Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously

contends that the petitioner joined the services with respondents in the

2 63-WP-5166-18.odt

year 1985. The petitioner was discharged from the duty on 23-01-1990

on medical ground. The petitioner was not paid disability pension. The

claim of the petitioner for disability pension was rejected. The petitioner

filed Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2000. The said Writ Petition was allowed

by the Division Bench of this Court under Judgment and order dated

08-10-2014, thereby the order of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for

disability pension was set aside. It was held that petitioner was entitled

for the benefit of disability pension and other consequential benefits.

The respondents were directed to pay the same. According to the

learned Advocate, though the said order was passed in October 2014,

the amount of pension was deposited in the account of the petitioner

only in the month of December, 2017. The learned Advocate for the

petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to disability pension at

least from the month of April 1990. The Rules applicable mandate that

the respondents shall make payment of pension within three months.

The petitioner was discharged from the duties on 23-01-1990. It means

the amount at least ought to have been paid by the Department in April,

1990. The respondent did not pay the said amount, eventually,

petitioner had approached this Court. The petitioner is entitled for

interest on delayed payment of pension from May, 1990 till the month of

December, 2017. Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for petitioner relies on

the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K.J.S. Buttar Versus

Union of India and another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 429.

3 63-WP-5166-18.odt

4. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

petitioner is not entitled for interest on delayed payment of pension. It

is bonafide belief of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled

for disability pension. The petitioner after lapse of ten years approached

this Court by filing the Writ Petition. According to learned counsel, this

Court had directed the payment of pension on the ground that the

Medical Board had arrived at un-reasoned conclusion and the Court by

taking liberal approach allowed the petition and directed the

respondents to make the payment of disability pension. After the order

was passed by this Court, some delay was caused because of

administrative reasons. The learned counsel submits that in similar

matters, the Apex Court has denied to grant interest on the delayed

payment, he relies on the order dated May, 20, 2015 in the case of

Union of India and others Versus Subhash Chander Soni in Civil Appeal

4677 of 2014.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

Advocate for the parties. The factual matrix as narrated above that the

petitioner was in employment of respondents from 1985 and discharged

from the duty w.e.f. 23-01-1990, is not disputed. The petitioner was not

paid disability pension. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2425 of

2000 after slumber of ten years. The delay in filing the Writ Petition was

because of departmental appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal was

4 63-WP-5166-18.odt

dismissed. This Court under Judgment and order dated 08-10-2014

partly allowed the Writ Petition directing the respondents therein to

make payment of disability pension to the petitioner. Though the order

was passed by this Court in the month of October, 2014, the amount of

pension was deposited in the account of the petitioner in December,

2017.

6. The petitioner was denied disability pension. The petitioner

suffered head as well as chest pain at Jalandhar and he was admitted in

the Hospital for about 5 to 6 months. On 23-01-1990 the petitioner was

discharged from his duty and sent back to home by the Army Officer.

On 18-10-1991 the claim of the petitioner for disability pension was

rejected on the ground that disability is not attributable to military

service or that it is not established that the disability is attributed to and

aggravated due to service.

7. This Court while partly allowing the Writ Petition under the

Judgment and order dated 08-10-2014 set aside the order of rejecting

claim of the petitioner for disability pension and directed the

respondents to make payment towards disability pension as may be due

and payable to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. While

directing respondents to pay amount, the Division Bench of this Court in

said order dated 08-10-2014 in Writ Petition No. 2425 of 2000 has not

directed payment of interest nor at that time the petitioner claimed the

5 63-WP-5166-18.odt

relief of interest. The said judgment is accepted by the petitioner and

respondents. Both the parties have submitted the said judgment. In

view of that, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the

petitioner that he is entitled for the interest on the delayed payment

since the year 1990. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of

this Court in Writ Petition No. 2425 of 200 has become final and binding

on both the parties.

8. However, it also needs to be considered that after judgment is

delivered on 08-10-2014, directing the respondents to make the

payment of disability pension and other consequential benefits to the

petitioner, the said pension amount was not paid almost for three years.

No rational explanation is coming forth for non-payment of pension

amount for a period of almost three years after order passed by this

Court. There is no reason for the respondents in not processing the

papers immediately, after the order passed by this Court. The Apex

Court in the case of Union of India and others Versus Subhash Chander

Soni (Supra) does not lay down any proposition of law about payment

or non-payment of interest on the delayed payment of pensionary

benefits. In the case of K.J.S. Buttar (supra) relied upon by the

petitioner, the Apex Court directed payment of disability pension with

interest @ 8% p.a. in the facts of said case.

9. There may be instance of the delay, may be caused on account of

employees not co-operating in process of pension benefits, in such a case

6 63-WP-5166-18.odt

person would not be entitled to interest. However, the same is not the

fact in the present case. At least after passing of the judgment and order

by this Court, the respondents ought to have made payment towards

disability pension within a reasonable time. As per the rules the

respondents are required to pay the pension amount within a period of

three months from the date of superannuation or discharged from the

duty or from the date of entitlement. Considering the judgment

delivered by this Court on 08-10-2014, respondents ought to have paid

the amount of disability pension by the end of December, 2014.

10. As no plausible explanation has been given by the respondents for

not making payment for a period of three years, we direct the

respondents to pay the interest @ 8% p.a. for a period of three years on

the amount of disability pension paid to the petitioner. Said payment

shall be made within a period of four (04) months from the date of this

order. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in above

terms. No costs.

 ( S.G. DIGE )                              ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
     JUDGE                                          JUDGE



mtk