Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 February, 2024
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 872 of 2021
Sanjay Kumar Sharma ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Home Department, Ranchi.
3. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand Police Head Quarter,
Ranchi.
4. The Additional Director General of Police, CID, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. The Superintendent of Police, CID, Ranchi.
6. The Accountant General, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sahajanand Sharma, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG
For the Resp-A.G. : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
------
12/ 17.02.2024 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is seeking direction upon the respondent-State to
make payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits including
pension, gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance etc. The petitioner has
also prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 377 dated
12.3.2021 by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of interest upon
delayed payment has been rejected.
3. It is specific case of the petitioner, as argued by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner working as Deputy Superintendent of
Police, CID, Ranchi retired on 31.7.2012 and soon after retirement, the
petitioner has submitted all the required papers to the Department, but no
action was taken and finally, during pendency of W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2014,
which has been filed by the petitioner for payment of retiral benefits with
interest, the payment of retirement benefits have been extended to the
petitioner in the year 2016-17. However, the claim of the petitioner for
interest on the delayed payment has been rejected by the impugned order,
which is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel further
submits that there is delay on the part of the respondents for about four and
half years and hence, he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no delay or laches on
the part of the respondent-State, rather, it is the petitioner who had not
submitted the required paper at appropriate time and place. Learned counsel
further submits that even the petitioner has submitted the declaration form
belatedly in the year 2014 and hence, the claim of the petitioner for interest
on the delayed payment has been rejected.
5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Accountant General submits that soon after receipt of
recommendation from the State Government, the office of Accountant
General has paid all the retiral benefits and there is no delay or laches on their
part in making the retiral payments.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the records, this Court finds that since the petitioner retired in the
year 2012 and all pension papers required were submitted by him soon after
retirement, it was incumbent upon the respondent-State to calculate the
amount and fix the pension as early as possible. Since no heed was paid, the
petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2014 for payment of
retiral benefits and interest on the delayed payment. Thereafter, during
pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent-State has paid the entire
retiral benefits. This Court in W.P.(S) No. 1922 of 2014 considering the fact
that there is delay on the part of the respondent-State on the retiral benefits
has directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioner and pass
reasoned order. However, the respondent-State has rejected the claim of the
petitioner for payment of interest.
7. The stand of the respondent-State that the petitioner has
submitted the declaration form belatedly in the year 2014 is not acceptable to
this Court, rather, it is totally misconceived and misplaced. The pensionery
benefits are not the bounty to be disbursed at the sweet-will of the
Authorities. It is the Constitutional and fundamental rights of an employee to
receive the retiral benefits, if there are no legal impediment. Nothing has been
brought on record to show that either a criminal case or a departmental
proceeding was pending against the petitioner. Due to lethargic and
lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the petitioner has been subjected to
hardship and has suffered monetary loss which makes the respondents liable
to pay interest on the due amount at an appropriate rate to compensate the
petitioner.
8. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429 held as
follows:-
"1.(the) pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be
distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement
but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights
and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement
and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of
payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment (to
the employees)'.
9. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari
(Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Uttar Harayan Bijli Vitran
Nigam Limited & Ors., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 held as follows:-
"6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the
order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant
facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent
employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionery benefits and
the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased
employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is
legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate
jurisdiction there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the
interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the
entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as
per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the
judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate
of 8% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the
gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent."
10. Similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari
reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 237 wherein it is held that salaries and
pensions are "rightful entitlements" of government employees and in case of
delay, they should be paid with interest at an appropriate rate. The relevant
paragraphs of said judgment is reproduced herein below:
"14. The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of
the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to
the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in
other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees
and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well
settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service
rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a
matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable
rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees
10 of the State. The State Government has complied with the
directions of this Court for the payment of the outstanding dues
in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned, we are of
the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by
the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned
counsel for the respondents submits that the award of interest
was on account of the action of the Government which was
contrary to law, we are of the view that the payment of interest
cannot be used as a means to penalize the State Government.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which
has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be
directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate. 15. We
accordingly order and direct that in substitution of the interest
rate of 12% per annum which has been awarded by the High
Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall pay simple
interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account of
deferred salaries and pensions within a period of thirty days
from today. ........................................."
11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, regulations,
guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order contained in
Memo No. 377 dated 12.3.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly,
the respondents are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% per annum
simple interest on the delayed payment on retiral benefits from the date of
entitlement till the date of the actual payment. It is made clear that if the
amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the
date of amount fallen due to the petitioner till date of actual payment.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition
stands allowed.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
R.Kr.
