Jharkhand High Court
Indrawati Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 26 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 1794 of 2019
------
Indrawati Devi ...... Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar.
4. The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar.
5. The Sub Divisional Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar.
.... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing.
-----
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
For the respondents-State Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. S.C.-III.
------
07/26.07.2021: 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 grant interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits of
her husband.
4. The facts are admitted in this case. Admittedly, after several round of
litigations, the retiral benefits of her husband was finally paid in the year 2018.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the retiral benefits of the
husband of the petitioner has been paid after long delay for which, the petitioner is
entitled to receive interest on the amount of delayed payment. He further submits
that by virtue of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the interest
accrues and becomes payable to the petitioner.
5. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the State, submits that in the
earlier round of litigations, there was no whisper for payment of interest, thus no
interest was paid to the petitioner. She further submits that there is no deliberate
laches on the part of the State, which can attract payment of interest on the amount
of delayed payment of retiral benefits.
6. This Court is not in the agreement with the statement of the counsel for
the State. Admittedly, the retiral benefits have been paid in the year 2018, through
the same should have been paid in the year 1984 itself, when the husband
superannuated. Thus, the payment was delayed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay L. Mehrotra-Versus- State of U.P. and Others reported in (2001) 9
SCC 687held 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.
7. In this case, the money 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 petitioner is entitled to receive
interest on the amount of delayed payment of retiral benefits of her husband.
8. Considering the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that the petitioner
is entitled for interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of delayed payment of retiral
benefits of her husband. The interest should be calculated on each head of the
retiral benefits, which the petitioner is entitled to receive. The interest should be
calculated from three month after the death of husband of the petitioner till the date
when actual payment was disbursed.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands
allowed.
Anu-CP-2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
