Decided On: 13Th November vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17245 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 13Th November vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 13 November, 2024

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

2024:HHC:11279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5658 of 2023 Decided on: 13th November, 2024 _________________________________________________________________ Manorma Devi ....Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors.

...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, lWhether approved for reporting? Yes _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ravinder Thakur Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.

Mr. T. R. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner seeks interest on Dearness Allowance of

Rs.23,62,082/- released to her by the respondents in

September, 2022 for the period 08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022.

2. Case as pleaded by the petitioner is that: -

2(i) Petitioner's husband Sh. Man Chand Thakur was

appointed as Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the respondent-

l Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

-2- 2024:HHC:11279

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (HESEBL) on

01.01.1978 on regular basis. He died in harness while posted

as Additional Assistant Engineer on 07.02.2007 at the age of

55 years.

2(ii) Petitioner was independently employed as Central

Head Teacher in the State Education Department at the time

of death of her husband.

2(iii) Petitioner, as wife of late Sh. Man Chand Thakur,

started receiving family pension w.e.f. 08.02.2007. Though

family pension was being paid to the petitioner, yet, the

component of Dearness Relief did not accompany it.

2(iv) Petitioner visited office of respondents many

times. She was assured that her case would be examined and

if found entitled, Dearness Relief shall be paid to her as part

of family pension. She sent representation/application to the

respondents-Board through e-mail on 06.08.2022, seeking

release of Dearness Relief and all arrears thereof w.e.f.

08.02.2007.

2(v) Respondents released a sum of Rs.23,62,082/- to

the petitioner on 01.09.2022 as arrears of Dearness Relief for

the period 08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022. Interest on delayed

-3- 2024:HHC:11279

release of arrears of Dearness Allowance was not paid.

Petitioner sent a representation to the respondents on

02.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), seeking interest on the delayed

payment of Dearness Allowance. The respondents did not

respond. Petitioner sent another representation to the

respondents on 08.08.2023, praying for release of interest on

Dearness Relief. Failing to get any positive response,

petitioner instituted this writ petition on 21.08.2023, seeking

interest on Dearness Relief for the period 08.02.2007 till

31.07.2022.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

considered the case file.

4. For the sake of brevity the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties and discussions

thereupon are being deliberated hereinafter: -

4(i) The stand taken by the learned counsel for the

respondents as also pleaded in their reply is that: -

4(i)(a) Petitioner was herself a regular employee in the

Education Department. She retired on 31.01.2021 as Central

Head Teacher from Government Primary School Alampur,

District Kangra.

                                   -4-                   2024:HHC:11279



4(i)(b)      Petitioner's husband Sh. Man Chand Thakur was

an employee of the respondent-Board. He died in harness on

07.02.2007. After his death, family pension was authorized

and was released in petitioner's favour w.e.f. 08.02.2007.

Dearness Allowance was not given to the petitioner owing to

her employment in the Government Department. Dearness

Allowance was not paid to the petitioner alongwith family

pension w.e.f. 08.02.2007 till 31.07.2022 in view of an office

memorandum dated 22.01.2001, issued by the Finance

Department (Pension Cell) Government of Himachal Pradesh

(Annexure RA-3) as clarified on 20.01.2017 (Annexure RA-2).

4(i)(c) It was only on receipt of petitioner's representation

on 10.08.2022, that her case was examined by the

respondents in light of office memorandum dated 22.01.2001.

The said office memorandum provided that pensioners, who

are re-employed under the State Government will be eligible

for Dearness Relief on pension subject to submission of

certificates. Accordingly, arrears of Dearness Allowance on

pension disbursed to the petitioner were computed at Rs.

23,62,082/- for the period 08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022 and the

same were credited in petitioner's bank account in

-5- 2024:HHC:11279

September,2022.

4(i)(d) Respondents paid Dearness Allowance arrears to

the petitioner for the entire period i.e. 08.02.2007 to

31.07.2022 even though they were not obligated in law to pay

her all the arrears. Petitioner had raised the dispute

regarding the non-payment of arrears of Dearness Allowance

only in August 2022. Hence, in light of law laid down in

Jai Dev Gupta Vs. State of H.P.1 petitioner was entitled to

arrears only for three years preceding her representation.

Reliance in this regard was also placed upon notification of

the State of H.P. issued on 15.12.2011 (Annexure RA-4).

4(ii) Respondents' stance does not hold much water.

Admittedly, petitioner was in regular employment of the

Education Department prior to death of her husband. It is

also not in dispute that being wife of late Sh. Man Chand

Thakur, she was entitled to family pension. It is a matter of

record that family pension was sanctioned in petitioner's

favour w.e.f. 08.02.2007, which she continues to receive till

date. It is also an admitted fact that the family pension paid

to the petitioner did not include component of Dearness

Allowance w.e.f. 08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022. Respondents

AIR 1998 SC 2819

-6- 2024:HHC:11279

have tried to take shelter of office memorandum dated

22.01.2001 for not paying the Dearness Allowance to the

petitioner w.e.f. 08.02.2007. It is relevant to note the

contents of the office memorandum dated 22.01.2001, which

reads as under: -

"NO. F'in-C-D (1)-1/2000 Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance Department (Pension Cell) Dated Shimla-171002, the 22nd January, 2001.

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Grant of Dearness Relief on Pension to re-employed Pensioners/Family Pensioners.

The undersigned is directed to say that as per extant orders on the subject, Dearness Relief to pensioners and family pensioners remains suspended during the period they remain re- employed/employed under the Central State Government, in a Public Sector Undertaking/Board/Autonomous Body/Bank in India or abroad. Similar is the position in regard to pensioners/family pensioners permanently absorbed in a Public Sector Undertaking/Autonomous Body/Bank under the Central or State Government.

The question of allowing dearness relief to re-employed pensioners was engaging the attention of the Government for quite some time past: After a careful consideration the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to order that:

1. Such re-employed pensioners will be entitled to Dearness Relief on their pension in whose case the entire pension admissible is ignored for fixation of pay on re-employment and their pay is fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the civil post to which they are re- employed

2. The dearness relief on pension will, however, not be admissible to those Ex-servicemen in whose case the pay is fixed above the minimum of the pay scale of the civil post on their re-

employment or in whose cases the entire amount of pension is not ignored for fixation of pay on re-employment to the civil post.

3. This concession will also not be admissible to employed/re- employed family pensioners who have been given appointment on

-7- 2024:HHC:11279

compassionate grounds. Payment of dearness relief in these cases shalt become admissible only from the date they cease to be re- employed. The Pension Disbursing Authority shall require such a pensioner to produce a certificate of cessation of re-employment from the office in which he had been re-employed.

4. In case of pensioners who are re-employed under the State Government or under any PSU/Board/Autonomous Body of the State Government or Bank, and are covered for the grant of dearness relief on pension in accordance with the decision of the Government referred to in the preceding paragraph, a certificate indicating the following shall have to be issued to them:

(i) The re-employed pensioner retired from a civil or military post and was holding a post not included in classified as group A or a post below the rank of Commissioned Officer in the Armed Forces.

ii) The entire amount of pension sanctioned by the Government was ignored for fixation of the pay on re-employment i.e. no part of the pension was taken into account in such fixation of pay in the pay scale of the post in which the pensioner was re-employed/absorbed

iii) The pay of the re-employed pensioner or absorbee is/was fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which he had/has been initially re-employed after his retirement.

All the Departments/Organizations are requested to bring these orders to the notice of all concerned pensioners who happened to be re-employed by them and are presently covered for the grant of dearness relief on pension. The requisite certificate as referred to above will be issued after verification of the details from the relevant record of the re-employed pensioner.

The Pension Disbursing Authority shall release Dearness Relief on pension to those re-employed pensioners who submit the certificate referred to above.

While implementing the decisions aforesaid orders issued by he Finance (Regulations) Department, vide Office memorandum Nos. Fin-C-B 7)-10/84 dated 1st ' December, 1988 and Fin-C-B (7)- 10/98 dated 8' September, 1999 regarding fixation of pay of re- employed pensioners shall be duly kept in view.

This order shall come into force with immediate effect.

Sd/-

(R.N. Batta) Additional Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

To All the Administrative Departments, Government of Himachal Pradesh."

-8- 2024:HHC:11279

The above office memorandum is about those

situations, existence of which pose a bar for release of

Dearness Allowance. Clause-1 of the above extracted office

memorandum pertains to the reemployed pensioners. It is not

applicable to the petitioner as she was not re-employed

pensioner. She was an employee in her own capacity prior to

the death of her husband and she is not a pensioner but a

family pensioner. Clause-2 of the office memorandum is also

not applicable to the petitioner as it pertains to ex-

servicemen. Clause-3 of the office memorandum concerns

re-employed family pensioners, who have been given

appointment on compassionate grounds etc. Petitioner was

not employed on compassionate grounds, therefore, this

clause does not apply in her case. Similarly, Clause-4 of the

above extracted office memorandum is about those

pensioners who are re-employed under the State

Government. Petitioner was not a pensioner to begin with

and she was certainly not re-employed under the State

Government. Petitioner was independently employed prior to

the death of her husband and became a family pensioner

after death of her husband in harness, therefore, office

-9- 2024:HHC:11279

memorandum dated 22.01.2001, restricting the grant of

Dearness Relief in four eventualities, had no applicability to

her case. Dearness Allowance could not be withheld from the

petitioner. Respondents had wrongly withheld the Dearness

Allowance from her for the period 08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022.

4(iii) Clarification dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure RA-2)

relied upon by the respondents for not releasing the Dearness

Allowance to the petitioner from the due date is also

misplaced. The said clarification reads as under: -

"Subject: Clarification regarding admissibility of dearness allowance to the employed/re- employed family pensioners appointed on compassionate grounds.

Sir, Kindly refer to your letter dated 7th October, 2016 on the subject cited above. It is intimated that the matter was referred to the Finance (Pension) Department. Finance(Pension) Department has clarified that in terms of Para- 2(3) of the Govt. O.M No. Fin-C-D(1)-1/2000 dated 22-1- 2001, the dearness relief on family pension shall not be admissible to the spouse where other member i.e son/daughter of the deceased Government servant is simultaneously, given an appointment on compassionate grounds in Government department without any competition. You, may therefore deal with the matter accordingly.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Additional Director Treasuries, Accounts and Lotteries, H.P."

It is not the case of the respondents that

- 10 - 2024:HHC:11279

son/daughter of late Sh. Man Chand Thakur was given

appointment on compassionate grounds in Government

Department with or without any competition. Hence, the

above clarification also cannot justify the action of the

respondents in withholding Dearness Allowance from the

petitioner as component of her family pension w.e.f.

08.02.2007 to 31.07.2022.

4(iv) It would also be appropriate to note Rule 55 (A) of

the CCS (Pension) Rules, as it stood prior to the amendment

of Rules on 20th December 2021: -

"55A. Dearness Relief on Pension / Family Pension

(i) Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time.

(ii) If a pensioner is re-employed under the Central or State Government or a Corporation/ Company / Body /Bank under them in India or abroad including permanent absorption in such Corporation /Company /Body /Bank, he shall not be eligible to draw Dearness Relief on pension /family pension during the period of such re-employment."

Petitioner does not fall under Rule 55(A)(ii) of the

Rules, as she was not a pensioner, who was re-employed,

hence, respondents could not have denied the Dearness

- 11 - 2024:HHC:11279

Allowance to the petitioner in view of her being in regular

service of the Education-Department. After amendment of the

CCS (Pension) Rules on 20th December 2021, payment of

Dearness Allowance to an employed family pensioner

provided under Rule 52(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

is as under: -

"52. Dearness Relief on Pension and Family Pension .-

(1) Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners, including the persons drawing compassionate allowance under rule 41 and family pensioners, in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time. (2) If a pensioner drawing pension or compassionate allowance under these rules is re-employed under the Central Government or State Government or a Corporation or Company or Body or Bank under them in India or abroad including permanent absorption or immediate absorption in such Corporation or Company or Body or Bank, he shall not be eligible to draw dearness relief on the pension or compassionate allowance during the period of such re-employment or permanent absorption or immediate absorption:

Provided that the dearness relief shall continue to be payable to a pensioner on re-employment or on permanent absorption or immediate absorption if:-

(i) before such re-employment, including permanent absorption or immediate absorption, he was not holding a post included or classified as Group 'A'; and

- 12 - 2024:HHC:11279

(ii) in accordance with the relevant rules or orders, his pay was fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay of the post in which he was so re-employed or absorbed and such minimum of the scale of pay was less than the pay which he was drawing immediately before his retirement or absorption; and

(iii) while fixing his pay in the post in which he was so re-employed or absorbed, the entire amount of pension sanctioned by the Central Government was ignored.

(3) For claiming dearness relief on pension or compassionate allowance, a pensioner who is re-

employed, including permanent absorption or immediate absorption, under the Central or State Government or a Corporation or Company or Body or Bank under them in India or abroad, shall be required to obtain a certificate from the said Central or State Government Department or office or the Corporation or the Company or the Body or the Bank to the effect that:-

(i) the re-employed pensioner or absorbee pensioner was holding a civil post not included or classified as Group 'A' in the Central Government before such re-

employment; and

(ii) the pay of the re-employed pensioner or absorbee pensioner was fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which he is so re-employed or absorbed and such minimum of the pay scale is less than the pay which the pensioner was drawing immediately before his retirement or absorption; and

(iii) the entire amount of pension or compassionate allowance sanctioned by the Central Government was ignored in fixation of the pay on re-employment or absorption and no part of the pension or compassionate allowance was taken into account in such fixation of pay in the pay scale of the post in which the pensioner is

- 13 - 2024:HHC:11279

reemployed or absorbed.

(4) Nothing in sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) shall be applicable in the case of a family pensioner who is employed under the Central or State Government or a Corporation or Company or Body or Bank under them in India or abroad and is eligible to draw a family pension from the Government in respect of a deceased member of his family in accordance with rule 50 and such family pensioner shall continue to be eligible to draw dearness relief on family pension during the period of such employment in accordance with sub-rule (1)".

Rule 52(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021

clearly makes out that restrictions on release of Dearness

Allowance imposed under Sub Rules 2 and 3 of Rule 54

would not be applicable in case of family pensioner, who is

employed under the Central or State Government and is

eligible to draw a family pension from the Government in

respect of deceased member of the family in accordance with

Rule 50 of the Rules.

4(v) Respondents' explanation that petitioner had

represented for release of dearness allowance only in August

2022, which led to delay in examining her case, is an

argument of desperation. Respondents were the employers of

petitioner's late husband Sh. Man Chand Thakur. They were

- 14 - 2024:HHC:11279

responsible for releasing due and admissible retiral benefits

including, family pension and Dearness Allowance to the

petitioner in accordance with law. It was for them to examine

the case of the petitioner at the relevant time i.e. 08.02.2007,

when the family pension was sanctioned in her favour. Had

the respondents examined the case of the petitioner in

accordance with law with proper comprehension of the office

memorandum dated 22.01.2001, it would have been

apparent to them that Dearness Allowance on family pension

could not have been denied to her. A family pensioner, who is

employed in independent capacity be it before or after the

death of the government servant in harness, is entitled to

Dearness Allowance on the family pension. Such,

employment of family pensioner cannot be construed to be a

case of re-employed pensioner/appointment of family

pensioner on compassionate ground/ appointment of kith

and kin of the deceased government servant without any

competition on compassionate grounds, in order to deny

Dearness Allowance.

Union of India Vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia

- 15 - 2024:HHC:11279

(retd.) and others and connected matter 2 holds that

once it is established that an amount legally due to a party

was not paid, the party responsible for withholding the

amount must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by

the Court.

                In S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana                     and

another3, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that                    if there are

statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim

payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are

Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed

for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on

that basis. But even in absence of Statutory Rules,

Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can

claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying

on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The grievance

voiced by the appellant that he would be entitled to interest

on delayed payment was held to be well founded.

In Dr. A Selvaraj Vs. C.B.M. College and

others4 there was delay in payment of retiral benefits and

settling the dues, for which the employee was not

(1994) 2 SCCC 240

(2008)3 SCC 44

(2022)4 SCC 627

- 16 - 2024:HHC:11279

responsible. He was held entitled to the interest on the

delayed payment. R. Sundaram Vs. The Tamil Nadu State

Level Scrutiny Committee and others 5 reiterated the law

laid down in State of Jharkhand Vs. Om Jitendra Kumar

Srevastava and another6 that not only right to receive

pension is a right in 'property' but attempt of employer to

take away a part of pension or gratuity or leave encashment

without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of

administrative instruments cannot be countenanced. Such

right which is a constitutional mandate in Article 300 A of the

Constitution cannot be taken away without authority of law.

The mere fact that upon a representation of the

petitioner made on 06.08.2022, the respondents examined

her case and released arrears of Dearness Allowance to her in

September, 2022 is a clear indicator that withholding

Dearness Allowance from the petitioner from 08.02.2007 till

31.07.2022 was an illegal act of the respondents. It was for

this reason the respondents released the withheld arrears of

Dearness Allowance to the petitioner. It was for the

respondents to examine the case of the petitioner as on

(2023) 4 Scale 385

(2013) 12 SCC 210

- 17 - 2024:HHC:11279

08.02.2007 for considering her entitlement not only to family

pension, but also to the Dearness Allowance component

thereof. Performance of respondents' (employer) obligations

in law do not depend upon petitioner's (employee)

representation. Respondents cannot escape their liability by

saying that they did not pay the Dearness Allowance in time

since the applicable office memorandum and Government

instructions were misconstrued by them and further by

wrongly placing the onus upon the petitioner for not claiming

the Dearness Allowance. It cannot be expected from welfare

employer to defend not releasing retiral dues to the petitioner,

(a family pensioner) on the count that since she did not

represent, she did not claim Dearness Relief, hence they did

not release the same. It was for the respondents to have

examined the matter in accordance with law. Release of

retiral benefits viz GPF, Pension, Leave encashment, Family

Pension etc. are solemn duties, which the employer owes

towards its retired employees and their dependents. Employer

is not supposed to wait for beneficiary's (pensioner/family

pensioner) making claim for release of the aforesaid benefits.

If the records are clear, these benefits are to be released as

- 18 - 2024:HHC:11279

per law. Sine this recourse was not adopted by the employer

in this case, therefore, to offset equity, petitioner's claim of

interest upon delayed payment is justified. An amount of

Rs. 23,62,082/- due to the petitioner (w.e.f. 08.02.2007 to

31.07.2022) towards Dearness Allowance remained with the

respondents and was released to her only in September 2022.

In the given facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is

certainly entitled to interest from due dates over the aforesaid

amount.

5. The result of above discussion is that this writ

petition succeeds. Respondents, therefore, are directed to

pay interest to the petitioner on withheld amount of Dearness

Allowance on the family pension paid to the petitioner

@ 5 % per annum from the due dates till actual payment.

This exercise be carried out within a period of five weeks from

today, failing which interest rate will become 6% per annum

from due dates.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

to stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 13 2024 R.Atal