Jharkhand High Court
Dulari Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 1855 of 2019
------
Dulari Hansda ...... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Ranchi.
3. The Treasury Officer, Dumka. .... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing.
-----
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate.
For the respondents-State Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, SC-VII
For the A.G. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate.
------
05/26.07.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which
has been held through video conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction upon the
respondent authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 15,22,598/- on account of arrears of
pension, which the petitioner's husband was entitled to from 1.8.2009 to April, 2017.
A prayer has also been made for direction upon the respondent authorities to pay
interest on the amount of delayed payment.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to
receive the aforesaid amount as the respondent authorities did not pay the same for
which, there were several round of litigations. He further submits that on 7.11.2019,
the aforesaid amount of Rs. 15,22,598/- has been paid to the petitioner, which is
evident from Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. He also submits
that now the petitioner is entitled to receive interest on the amount of delayed
payment.
5. Counsel for the State submits that the amount, which the petitioner is
claiming has already been paid to her, which is evident from Annexure-A to the
supplementary counter affidavit.
6. It is admitted fact that the arrears of pension for the period 1.8.2009 to
April, 2017 has been paid only on 7.11.2019. If the amount of pension is not paid on
monthly basis, it causes a great hardship to the employee or his/her family. It
becomes very difficult for a retired employee to maintain himself and his family when
the pension is not paid regularly. The status of the employee becomes no better
than that of a pauper, as he is left un-cared for. In the instant case, the pension from
August 2009 to April 2017 was paid only on 7.11.2009, meaning thereby, in the
aforesaid period,no amount was given to the petitioner. During this period, the
husband of the petitioner and the petitioner were left un-cared for. This type of
attitude of not paying pension within time by the employer is highly deprecated. This
amount of Rs. 15,22,598/- was retained by the State and definitely the amount was
not kept idle. The State utilizes the said money. Thus petitioner should be
compensated by paying interest on the same.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra-Versus-
State of U.P. and Others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 held that it is expected that
all retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. In the
aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to pay interest on the
amount of delayed payment. Considering the aforesaid judgment, in the case of
WP(S) No. 4029 of 2016, this Court has held that no money remains idle with the
State, it fetches some interest or benefits as the same is utilized by the State. The
person, who withholds the said money, earns the said benefits. Thus, the said
benefit has to be passed on to the person, whose money has been withheld.
8. In this case, the pension of the employee has not been paid within time
and the same has been retained by the State. The State definitely utilized the same
and must have earned some benefits. Thus, the State is duty bound to pay interest
on the amount of delayed payment of pension to petitioner.
9. Since the pension has been paid belatedly, I direct the respondent
authorities to calculate interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of pension, which the
petitioner is entitled to, from 1.8.2009 to April' 2017 on the amount, which becomes
due on yearly basis and pay the same to the petitioner within three months from the
date of production of a copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands
allowed.
Anu-CP-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
