Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1412 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1230/2019
                                       In
               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25507/2018

Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Heeralal Sharma, Aged About
62 Years, Resident Of 189-F1, Ganesh Nagar, Iskon Road,
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
       Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Rural
       Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     The Zila Parishad, Jaipur Through Its Chief Executive
       Officer.
3.     The Block Development Officer,                       Panchayat   Samiti,
       Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shikha Parnami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Government Counsel

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

10/02/2022

Heard.

This appeal arises out of order dated 12.07.2019 passed by

the learned Single Judge, whereby, a part of the relief claimed by

the appellant for payment of interest has been denied.

In nutshell, facts necessary for adjudication of controversy

involved in the appeal are that the appellant, who was originally

working as Laboratory Assistant, was later on absorbed on the

post of Gram Sewak cum Ex-officiating Secretary on 08.11.2000.

A dispute with regard to grant of pay on account of absorption on

(2 of 5) [SAW-1230/2019]

a post carrying lower pay scale arose. The appellant approached

learned Single Judge by filing writ petition. The learned Single

Judge relying upon the decision in the case of Rajkumar

Agrawal Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ

Petition No.5400/2015 decided on 12.04.2017 held that the

present appellant, on parity, is also entitled to the same relief with

regard to protection of pay and an order was passed in favour of

the appellant. The direction was accordingly issued to the

Government that the appellant's case will also be considered on

the same lines as in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra).

However, as far as claim of interest, which was made by the

appellant in the petition, was disallowed. It is this part of the order

which is under challenge in this appeal.

The pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant

is that as the consequence of the direction issued by learned

Single Judge with regard to the pay to which the appellant was

legally entitled to and in respect of which declaration was made by

this court will have necessary effect on retiral benefits, which were

given to the appellant and therefore, on the additional amount,

which is payable to the appellant towards retiral benefits, an

interest is liable to be paid under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Rules of 1996'). According to learned counsel for the appellant,

this issue has also been decided by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma Versus State of

Rajasthan & Others, DB Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1576/2019 decided on 19.04.2021.

Therefore, it is contended that the interest as admissible to

the appellant under Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 in terms of the

(3 of 5) [SAW-1230/2019]

Division Bench of this court in the case of Naval Kishore Sharma

(supra) be also awarded.

Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submit

that as far as claim of interest is concerned, that claim was not

allowed by this court in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). The

appellant claimed parity and sought directions similar to that given

in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). As in the case of

Rajkumar Agrawal (supra), no interest was granted, the appellant

could not have claimed interest. The other submission of learned

counsel for the respondents is that there are various objections

with regard to excess payment made to the appellant. Therefore,

for that objection also, the appellant could not have claimed any

interest and all that could be paid to the appellant was related to

arrears of pay to which the appellant is entitled in view of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

record and the order of the learned Single Judge.

Undisputedly, the appellant has been held entitled to higher

benefits of pay in view of the judgment of this court passed in the

case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra). This aspect has not been

disputed by the respondents.

However, the question, which arises for consideration, is

whether in respect of retiral benefits, the appellant is entitled to

interest as mandate of law leaves no discretion in the hands of

Court to deny such an interest.

Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:-

"89. Interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits :

[(1) If the payment of retiral benefits has been authorised after 60 days from the date when its payment became due, and it is established that the

(4 of 5) [SAW-1230/2019]

delay in payment was not on account of failure on the part of the Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in this chapter or elsewhere in these rules, interest @ 9% per annum from the date retiral benefits become due would be payable till the end of the month preceeding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorised.]"

(2) Every case of delayed payment of retiral benefits shall, suo moto, be examined by the Head of Office and shall be forwarded to the Administrative Department through the Head of the Department, and where the Administrative Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of retiral benefits was caused on account of administrative lapse or inaction, the Administrative Department concerned shall issue sanction for the payment of interest to the Director, Pension Department.

(3) In all cases, where payment of interest has been authorised, the Administrative Department concerned shall fix responsibility and take disciplinary action under the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958 against the Government servant(s) who is/are found responsible for the delay in the payment of retiral benefits and shall recover the loss caused to the Government due to payment of interest to the pensioner from the Government servant(s) held responsible.

(4) In the order for payment of interest, the Administrative Department shall also mention the name(s) of officer(s)/official(s) responsible for delay and the amount of interest recoverable from him/them.

(5) If as a result of Government's decision taken subsequent to the retirement of a Government servant, the amount of retiral benefits already paid on his retirement is enhanced on account of-

(a) grant of emoluments higher than the emoluments on which retiral benefits, already paid, were determined, or

(b) liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior, to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned. No interest on the arrears of retiral benefits shall be paid.

(6) In case any delay is caused in the Pension Department, responsibility shall be fixed for such delay and suitable action taken against such erring official(s) to recover the interest paid to the pensioner."

The aforesaid Rule ordains that if payment of retiral benefits

has been authorized after 60 days from the date when its

payment became due and it is established that the delay in

(5 of 5) [SAW-1230/2019]

payment was not on account of failure on the part of the

Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down in

this Chapter or elsewhere in the Rules, interest @ 9% per annum

will have to be paid. Payment of interest under Rule 89 in respect

of delayed payment of retiral benefits is statutory mandate and

not the matter of discretion. Once the appellant is entitled to

certain benefits as component of retiral benefits as a consequence

of declaration of pay at the appropriate level in view of the

judgment of this court in the case of Rajkumar Agrawal (supra),

the additional payments, which have to be made as component of

retiral benefits, would definitely carry interest @ 9% p.a. perforce

statutory mandate and that has to be awarded to the appellant.

We are, therefore, of the view that learned Single Judge was

not justified in law in denying interest. Accordingly, we direct the

respondents to work out interest on the components of retiral

benefits to which the appellant is entitled to on declaration of his

rights and entitlement under the order of the learned Single Judge

in the matter of his pay upon absorption as Gram Sewak. The

appellant being a retired employee should be paid interest within

outer limit of four months and not beyond that in any case.

Though, learned counsel for the respondents sought to raise

an issue of excess payment to the appellant, this appeal does not

involve any such issue, therefore, we are not inclined to make any

comment on the same.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Karan/51

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)