Delhi High Court
Mahabir Singh Chauhan vs Union Of India & Anr. on 10 January, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2082/2011
% January 10, 2013
MAHABIR SINGH CHAUHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Umesh Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. R-1.
Mr. S.L.Gupta, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner retired as a Naib Subedar from the Army in the
year 1979. After retirement the petitioner was drawing pension from his
employer/Army for which the disbursal agency was the respondent
No.2/State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch and paying agency was
Pay and Accounts office of the respondent No.1.
2. The Central Government brought into force the
recommendations of the fifth Central pay commission and which was
informed to the defence service chiefs by means of a letter dated 24.11.1997.
The date for crediting of the first instalment of arrears of pension was on or
before 31.12.1997, and for the second instalment of arrears instructions were
to be issued later on in terms of para 11 of the circular which reads as
under:-
"11. It is considered desirable that the benefit of these
orders should reach the pensioners as expeditiously as
possible. To achieve this objective, it is desired that all
Pension Disbursing Authorities should ensure that the
revised pension and the first instalment of arrears due to
the pensions in terms of the above orders is paid to the
pensions or credited to their account by 31st December,
1997 or before, positively. Instructions regarding release
of second instalment of arrears will be issued later."
(underlining added).
3. At this stage, I must state that there is nothing which is
forthcoming from record which could be pointed out to me either by the
counsel for the petitioner or by the respondents as to which was the date for
crediting of the second instalment of arrears payable in terms of the fifth
Central pay commission report.
4. Sixth Central pay commission report thereafter came and which
was directed to be implemented by means of the circular dated 11.11.2008
issued to the defence service chiefs. As per para 21 of the said circular, 40%
of the arrears was to be paid immediately on issuance of the circular dated
11.11.2008 and the balance 60% of arrears was to be payable by 31.3.2010,
and which para reads as under:-
"21. 40% of the arrears for the period of 1.1.2006 to
31.8.2008 on account of updation of pension/family
pension under these orders will be paid immediately and
remaining 60% of arrears shall be payable in the year
2009-2010.
5. The case of the petitioner is that arrears in terms of the fifth
Central pay commission report were credited in his account only on
12.7.2010 i.e. there is a delay of first instalment from 1.1.1998 to 12.7.2010
and the second instalment (date payable not known) till 12.7.2010.
6. So far as the payment of arrears in terms of the sixth Central
pay commission report is concerned, the petitioner claims that 40% of the
arrears were payable by 11.11.2008, but were only paid on 15.6.2010 and
even the balance 60% of the arrears which were payable by 31.3.2010 were
paid again only on 15.6.2010.
7. It has now been held by the Supreme Court in a series of
judgments reported as R.P.Kapur vs. Union of India, 1999 (8) SCC 110;
R.R. Bhanot vs. Union of India, 1994 (2) SCC 406; State of Kerala vs.
N.Padmanabhan Nair, 1985 Vol. 1 SCC 429; O.P.Gupta vs. Union of
India, 1987 (4) SCC 328 and Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P., 1999 (3) SCC
438, that if there is any delay in grant of pension, the pensioner is entitled to
interest on the pension paid with delay inasmuch as pension is not a bounty,
which is granted by the Government.
8. A reference to the counter affidavit shows that none of the
averments as stated in the writ petition are really in any manner disputed by
the respondent No.1. So far as the respondent No.2 is concerned its counsel
only states that the petitioner is not entitled to interest on arrears because it
was only in the year 2010 that request was first made for payment of arrears
of pension and which is said to be clear because the petitioner had written a
letter dated 3.4.2010 for crediting the amount in his account of the arrears in
terms of the fifth Central pay commission and sixth Central pay commission.
It is also argued on behalf of the respondent No.2 that in the letter dated
16.7.2010 the petitioner claims that he is fully satisfied with the bank and
taking back his complaint.
9. In my opinion, the arguments raised by respondent No.2 are
misconceived in view of the admitted facts and the ratio of the judgments of
the Supreme Court stated above which requires payment of interest for delay
and hence petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% (as claimed
by the petitioner as per ground (E) in the writ petition) on delayed period for
crediting of the arrears of pension for the following periods:-
(i) For the period from 1.1.1998 till 12.7.2010 so far as the first
instalment of Rs.5,000/- plus 50% of the balance amount of arrears are
concerned in terms of VCPC.
(ii) From a specific date which will be informed by the respondents
to the petitioner, (being the last date for crediting of the second
instalment of the arrears of fifth pay commission) till 12.7.2010 for the
second instalment of payment under VCPC.
(iii) For 40% of the arrears in terms of the 6th Central pay
commission interest will be payable from 11.11.2008 to 15.6.2010 and
(iv) For 60% of the arrears in terms of the 6th Central pay
commission interest will be payable from 1.4.2010 till 15.6.2010.
10. In case the respondent No.2/State Bank of India has any issue
on account of non-crediting of the amounts which are granted by today's
judgment towards interest in favour of the petitioner, the respondent No.2
will be at liberty to recover the amount payable to the petitioner in terms of
today's judgment from the respondent No.1.
11. The writ petition is disposed of by granting interest to the
petitioner as stated above. Any issue or dispute as to the calculation or of
amounts payable, the same will (if it arises) be looked into in any contempt
proceedings if the respondents do not comply with the present judgment.
12. Writ petition is therefore allowed as stated above, leaving
parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 10, 2013
ak
