Rajasthan High Court
Pradeep Kumar Singh S/O Shri Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1039/2021
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17206/2015
Pradeep Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Ram Lakhan Singh, Aged
About 67 Years, Resident Of 435, Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer,
Road, Sodala, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Department Of Personnel,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Advocate General, Government Of Rajasthan, B
Block, High Court Campus, Jaipur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Law
And Legal Affairs Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Raghav, Additional Advocate
General
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment / Order
REPORTABLE
04/05/2022
Heard.
Even though, principal relief sought for in the writ petition
that the appellant was entitled to be treated as having retired
from the substantive post of Private Secretary, has been granted
(2 of 6) [SAW-1039/2021]
by learned Single Judge, only to the limited extent, in so far as
rate of interest is concerned, the appellant feels aggrieved and has
filed this appeal.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2022 in
Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1230/2019), learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that in the present case, as has been
directed by learned Single Judge, against which appeal has also
been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2022 in
State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar Singh (D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1006/2021), the appellant's entitlement
to statutory interest under Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has
not been favorably answered and only 6% interest per annum has
been awarded.
Relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), it is contended that the consequence of
the declaration in favour of the appellant would be that he was
entitled to release of retiral benefits which include pension,
gratuity and leave encashment as is applicable in the case of a
Private Secretary. Therefore, the legal consequences have to flow
entitling the appellant to interest @ 9 % per annum as ordained
under Rule 89 of the Rules.
Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that present
is not a case where the appellant having retired, he was not
granted any pensionary benefits. At that time, the respondent
authority, on bona fide formation of opinion that the appellant was
substantively holding the post of LDC, his pension was worked
(3 of 6) [SAW-1039/2021]
out. It was only after judicial pronouncement that he has been
held entitled to pensionary benefits by treating him as having
retired from the post of Private Secretary. Therefore, it cannot be
said to be a case of inaction or failure on the part of respondents
and as such the entitlement of interest @ 9% per annum on the
enhanced amount could not be allowed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
Indisputably, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner that
he substantively continued on the post of Private Secretary until
his retirement found favour and the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition holding that the appellant was entitled to retiral
benefits treating him as having superannuated from the post of
Private Secretary. That order was further challenged by the
respondents by filing appeal, which too was dismissed by this
Court vide judgment dated 14.03.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 1006/2021.
The legal consequences flowing from the declaration made
by this Court are that the release of retiral benefits by treating
writ petitioner as LDC was not proper in law and he was entitled to
retiral benefits by treating him as having retired from the
substantive post of Private Secretary. That would mean that he
was entitled to retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave
encashment at higher rates. This would incidentally involve
payment of revised pensionary benefits, i.e., payment of
difference of pensionary benefits, which were paid earlier and
which are now required to be paid to him by virtue of revision
consequent upon judicial order.
Provision contained in Rule 89 (1) of the Rules as under:-
(4 of 6) [SAW-1039/2021]
"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 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."
The aforesaid provision was considered by this Court in the
case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(supra). On facts that was also a case where the claim for revised
pensionary benefits was raised. This Court having found that the
appellant therein was entitled to revised pension, applied the
provision contained in Rule 89, sub-rule (1) of the Rules as
below:-
"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 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.
(5 of 6) [SAW-1039/2021]
perforce statutory mandate and that has to be awarded
to the appellant."
The entitlement of interest @ 9% per annum as provided
under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 89 is intended to compensate the
Government Servant, where there is delay in payment of
pensionary benefits, which are due to him under the law.
True it is that initially the respondents allowed pensionary
benefits to the appellant by treating him as LDC, the legal
consequences flowing from judicial declaration are that he was
entitled to payment of pensionary benefits as Private Secretary
and not as LDC. Therefore, as a direct consequence of such
judicial declaration, Rule 89 (1) of the Rules would require
payment of interest @ 9% per annum for delay in accordance with
the provisions of that part. The word 'failure' as occurring in Rule
89, sub-rule (1) has to be given a wider interpretation. It is not
only when on bona fide assumption or consideration, retiral
benefits are extended but it will equally apply to those cases
where the Court holds that the retired employee was entitled to
higher pensionary benefits/retirement benefits under the law. In
all such circumstances, Rule 89 comes to the aid of the retired
employee and he would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum.
At the cost of repetition, we would say that there is no discretion
left. The only circumstance, in which the interest could be denied,
is that delay was on account of failure on the part of the
Government servant in compliance of the procedure laid down
under the chapter or elsewhere under the rules applicable. Since,
judicial declaration amounts to failure on the part of the State,
this provision will come into application.
(6 of 6) [SAW-1039/2021]
Without recording our finding, we only place on record the
submission of learned counsel for the appellant that a resolution
has been passed on 13.04.2022 in the Department of Law and
Legislative Affairs, not to file any appeal against the order dated
14.03.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1006/2021.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is held
entitled to interest @ 9% per annum in accordance with the
provisions contained in Rule 89(1) of the Rules. The order passed
by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent as above.
Before parting with the case, we expect that the retired
employee should be given all the benefits due and admissible
under the law as early as possible.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Mohita /53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
