Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prof. Rama Kant Nagar vs Higher Education Department on 31 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2587
1 WP-17594-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17594 of 2017
PROF. RAMA KANT NAGAR
Versus
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Murtuza Bohra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy.G.A for the respondent/State.
Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar and Ms.Harshlata Soni - Advocate for the
respondent No.2.
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally since the
pleadings are complete.
The present petition is filed by a retired Government employee aged
about more than 80 years of age.
In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed a direction to the
respondents to grant interest @ 8% on retiral dues i.e arrears of gratuity,
leave encashment and pension from the date of retirement till date of
payment.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner who is retired professor
from respondent No.2 filed a W.P No.3476/2016 under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent to grant revised
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2587
2 WP-17594-2017
pension with arrears and all pensionary benefits including revised gratuity,
leave encashment alongwith arrears in accordance with notification dated
3/8/2009. After hearing the respondents, the said petition was disposed off in
the light of the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta vs.
State of M.P and Ors. in W.P No.12169/2013 . The judgment passed in the
case of Dr. Surendra Kumar Gupta was affirmed by the Division Bench by
dismissing the W.A No.372/2015 filed by the State. Being aggrieved by the
said order of the Division Bench, the State also filed an SLP No.10143/2016
before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed on 22/4/2016. The
petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to extend all
pensionary benefits to the petitioner in view of the notification dated
3/8/2009. It was further directed that the exercise of granting pension, arrears
of pension and other benefits by issuing a revised pension payment
order(PPO) be completed within period of 3 months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of that order.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have paid the
aforesaid amount of gratuity, leave encashment, pension.
The same is reproduced as under:-
Heads Amt.(Rs.) Date(paid) Delay
1 Gratuity
3,50,000/- 29.12.12 3 y.8 m.
6,50,000/- 02.01.17 7 y 8 m.
2 Leave Encash. 78,013/- 29-12-12 3 y. 9 m.
27,816/- 07-12-16 7 y. 8 m
3 Pension 7,55,829/- various various period
He submitted that the delay in payment of retiral dues of the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2587
3 WP-17594-2017
is not attributed to the employee and in the reply also the respondents have
not stated that the delay in payment of aforesaid retiral dues was on account
of the petitioner/employee and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest
on the arrears from the date of his superannuation i.e 30/4/2009. In support
of his submission he relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India vs. Justice S.S.Sandhawala (Retd.) and Others
reported in 1994 (2) SCC 240 and in the case of D.D Tiwari (dead) through
Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli vitran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.
reported in 2014 (8) SCC 894 and the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of State of M.P and Ors. Vs. Ramji Das Agrawa l reported in 2013 (1)
MPLJ 53. In the aforesaid judgments it has been held that if the delay in
making the payment is solely attributed to the department, employee cannot
be deprived from the benefit of interest.
Per contra counsel for the respondent/State submits that this Court has
not awarded the interest while disposing off the petition. He further argued
that the petition was disposed off in the light of the judgment passed in the
case of Dr.Surendra Kumar Gupta (supra) and in the said judgment also the
interest was not awarded.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the identically placed
employees have been paid interest.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
pension and other retiral dues of a retired Government servant is not bounty
but it is his right. In this regard a reference may be made to various
judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Dr.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2587
4 WP-17594-2017
(ms) Binapani Dei and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269 , Deokinandan
Prasad vs Sate of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1971(2) SCC 330 , State of
Punjab vs. K.R Erry & Sobhag Rai Mehta/State of Punjab vs. Khausal Singh,
P.A.S reported in 1973 (1) SCC 120 , State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Iqbal Singh
reported in 1976 (2) SCC 1 , Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Dy.CIT & Ors .
reported in 2007 (2) SCC 181 and there is no explanation from the
respondents for not making the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner from
the date it became due after retirement. Except stating that there is no order
by this Court for payment of interest in the earlier petition and in the case of
Surendra Kumar Gupta (supra). There is no averment that the delay was
attributed on account of the petitioner. Further from perusal of the aforesaid
table, this Court finds that some payments were not paid even within 3
months time period granted by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid, the
petition is allowed. The respondent/State is directed to pay 6% interest to the
petitioner on retiral dues in accordance with law from the date the dues were
paid after the retirement, till the same is paid. The aforesaid exercise shall be
carried out within period of 3 months from today.
With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
