Jharkhand High Court
Agapit Tete vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1783 of 2020
----
Agapit Tete ... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Principal Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.
3. Special Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. District Welfare Officer, Deoghar.
5. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A. IV
----
7/ 27.07.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents through Video Conferencing. 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 complain in respect to the
audio and video clarity and quality.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has made two fold prayers. He has
prayed for payment of his pension and gratuity since he has superannuated
with effect from 31.10.2017. He has also prayed for payment of interest on
delayed payment.
3. During course of argument, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that his pension and gratuity has been paid in the
month of June, 2021. Thus, the first prayer has been redressed. He submits
that since there is delay in paying these amounts, he is entitled for interest on
the delayed payment. He refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Versus Dinavahi Lakshmi
Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 237.
4. Counsel appearing for the State submits that there was some
discrepancy in pension papers and hence it took some time to disburse the
pension and gratuity. Petitioner had superannuated on and from 31.10.2017,
but, his pension and gratuity has been paid in June 2021. The annexure
appended to the writ petition clearly suggests that there was correspondence
between Government Departments, which took much time to disburse the
pension and gratuity to the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, there was delay in disbursing the pension. The
pension and gratuity are to be disbursed at the earliest no sooner an employee
superannuates. There cannot be any delay in disbursing pension and gratuity.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh &
Another versus Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari reported in (2021) SCC
Online SC 237 has held that delayed payment of retiral benefits will attract
payment of interest.
6. Admittedly, payment of retirement benefit has been paid at a
belated stage, i.e., after four years after superannuation. In opinion of this
Court, petitioner is entitled to get interest. Thus, in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (supra)
as also in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Kishore
Prasad Singh versus State of Jharkhand & Others in W.P.(S) No.4029 of
2016, I direct the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of the
amount towards pension and gratuity at the rate of 7% per annum. The
interest should be calculated from 01.01.2018 till the date of actual payment.
The respondent No.2 will ensure that the interest be calculated and paid to the
petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy
of this order.
7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
