Raman Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4931 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Raman Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 6 May, 2024

Author: S.N. Pathak

Bench: S. N. Pathak

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                        W.P.(S) No. 669 of 2024

                Raman Kumar                                              ... ... Petitioner
                                                 - VERSUS-
               1. State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of
                  Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Government of
                  Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
               2. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand,
                  Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi
               3. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma
               4. The District Supply Officer, Koderma.
                                                                          ... ... Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, AC to AAG-IA

04/06.05.2024 Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner confines his prayer for payment of difference of salary on account of 7th Pay Revision which has been paid to him on 14.03.2024, though he was entitled for the same with effect from 18.01.2017.

3. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel fairly submits that though petitioner has received the entire amount under the head of retiral benefits as well as pensionary benefits but belatedly on 14.03.2024 whereas he was entitled for the same with effect from 18.01.2017 itself and as such petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment i.e. 18.01.2017 to 14.03.2024

4. Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, learned counsel representing State submits that petitioner has received entire amount. It was the benefits of 7th pay revision which was not given to him on time and now after receipt of benefits, he is not entitled for any other benefits. Delay, if any, is not on part of the respondents rather it has occurred due to some error on part of the petitioner and as such he is not entitled for any interest.

5. Admittedly, entire amount for which petitioner is entitled, has already been paid to him. it has been held in plethora of Judgment that retiral benefits are not bounty. It is right of the employee to get the retiral benefits. It is not mercy or sweet will of the respondents to pay retiral dues to the employee. The officers responsible for not making timely payment of retiral benefits should be handled severely.

6. State has shown bonafide that entire amount has already been paid and it is only benefits of 7th pay revision which has been delayed for seven years.

7. In the circumstances, I, hereby, direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on delayed payment from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment.

8. With the aforementioned observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)