Jharkhand High Court
The Deputy Development Commissioner vs Ram Sewak Mandal on 18 January, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023
(with I.A. No. 4505 of 2023)
1. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District
- Sahibganj.
2. The District Engineer, Zila Parishad, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District -
Sahibganj.
3. The Executive officer, Zila Parishad, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District -
Sahibganj.
--Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Sewak Mandal, son of Late Amrit Mandal, aged about- 67 years,
Resident of North Colony, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. and District - Sahibganj.
-Writ Petitioner/Respondent
2. The State of Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O. + P.S. + District - Sahibganj.
-Respondents/Performa Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, A.C. to G.P.-II
---------
18th January 2024
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellants for
condoning the delay of 99 days in preferring the present Letters Patent
Appeal.
2. After going through the averments made in the interlocutory
application and being satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant, the
delay in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned.
3. I.A. No.4505 of 2023 is allowed.
4. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2022
passed in W.P. (S) No. 1931 of 2018 whereby the learned writ Court has
directed the appellants to pay interest @ 7% per annum on the amount of post
retiral benefits due to the fact that there has been a delay of nine years in
making the payment.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the
impugned order has submitted that there was a departmental proceeding
initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner and arising out of the same
incident a criminal case was also instituted against him. The respondent-writ
petitioner retired on 31.07.2010 but he was acquitted in the criminal case only
on 22.04.2017. The learned counsel has fairly submitted that no punishment in
the departmental proceeding has been inflicted upon the respondent-writ
petitioner as no order of punishment has been brought on record in the writ
proceeding. However, it is not in dispute that during pendency of the writ
petition, the appellants released the retiral benefits to the respondent-writ
petitioner and for which appropriate affidavit was also filed in the writ
proceeding. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the writ
records, the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner could not be
processed on account of absence of the service book which was ultimately
submitted vide letter dated 08.12.2017. The learned counsel has submitted that
in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the direction to pay interest
on the retiral benefits is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that the respondent-
writ petitioner had superannuated with effect from 31.07.2010 and he was not
paid the retiral benefits and ultimately during the pendency of the writ
petition, the retiral benefits were paid to him in the month of June, 2019, after
a delay of nine years. Vide letter dated 08.12.2017 the respondent-writ
petitioner annexed a copy of the service book and stated that he was not in
possession of his original service book. There is no justification found in the
records for not releasing the retiral benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner
who had retired as back as on 31.07.2010. This Court is of the considered
view that retiral benefits is the right of a retired employee and it is the duty of
the appellants to ensure that the retiral benefits are promptly paid. Non-
payment of retiral benefits has a direct bearing on right to life leading to
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court is also of the
considered view that the learned writ Court has rightly referred to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the case of "State
of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari" reported
in (2021) 11 SCC 543, wherein it has been held that delay in paying the retiral
benefits will attract interest. The payment of interest @ 7% p.a. for the delay
in payment of the retiral benefits is by way of compensation for delayed
payment of money arising out of the retiral benefits.
7. This Court is of the considered view that the learned writ Court
has rightly exercised power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
the writ Courts are also Courts of equity. In such circumstances, the impugned
order dated 12.12.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No.1931 of 2018 does not call for
any interference. L.P.A. No. 208 of 2023 is dismissed accordingly.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Manoj/-
