Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 669 (RAJ)

Harak Lal Soni v. The State of Rajasthan

2009-03-04

VINEET KOTHARI

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "(A) That by a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued and the respondents may be directed that petitioner may be provided terminal benefits of his services with all consequential benefits. (B) That by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, the respondents may further be directed that commutation of pension, gratuity and remaining one-forth of pension w.e.f. 1st September, 1991 and arrears of such dues may also be provided to the petitioner along with interest on account of abnormal delay on part of the respondents with all consequential benefits. (C) That any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour o the petitioner and against the respondents. (D) That cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner from the respondents." 3. Learned counsel on the previous occasions on 24.10.2008 and 12.12.2008 submitted before this Court that during the pendency of this writ petition though the retiral benefits were paid to him on 8.4.2008 by two cheques one of Rs.1,63,960/- and another cheque of Rs.10,721/-, however, the said retiral benefits were paid without any interest to the petitioner though there were delay of approximately 17 years in the payment of said retiral benefits. The petitioner had retired from service as Store Munshi on 31.8.1991 itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Trivedi relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Mohd. Siddiqui v. State of Rajasthan - 2007(1) WLC(Raj.) 56 in which this Court with reference to Rule 280 of R.S.R. held as under:- "11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 made it clear that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. 12. The liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. 12. On the same principle, finding that there was culpable delay on the part of sanctioning authority, the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of S. Saleema Bi v. S. Pyari Begum and anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3513 directed payment of interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of retirement of the incumbent until the date of payment. 13. This Court in the case of B.L. Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR 2001 (3) 768 following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra) in like circumstances observed that there is no reason for not making the payment for years together. Therefore, the respondents were to pay interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. from the date of retirement till respective payments have been made to the appellant. 14. There is another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of Mohan Lal Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 (3) WLC (Raj.) 648. In the said case, the Court observed that the learned Single Judge was not correct in relegating the appellant to the remedy of civil suit and awarded interest @ 18% per annum. 15. As we have noticed above from the fact that there has been culpable negligence on the part of the respondents in granting retiral benefits and making them available to the petitioner in so much so that even provisional pension release of which as on the date of retirement was statutory duty of the respondents was not granted notwithstanding making prayer in that regard. 16. This makes the petitioner entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. The rate of interest when the appellant retired was much higher than the current rate of interest. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 10% with effect from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. The cost of this litigation shall be borne by the respondents which we quantify as Rs.5000/-. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with costs as aforesaid." 5. The cost of this litigation shall be borne by the respondents which we quantify as Rs.5000/-. 17. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with costs as aforesaid." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prays that interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits deserves to be given to the petitioner in the present case also. 6. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner could not be adequately rebutted by the respondents and the respondents have failed to establish any cogent reason before this Court for such enormous delay in the payment of retiral benefits of the petitioner which admittedly were paid to the petitioner in the year 2008 after deducting the sum of Rs.17,979/- on account of such shortage in the stores of which charge was handed over by the petitioner which the petitioner accepted. 7. Having heard learned counsels and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of binding precedent quoted above this writ petition deserves to be allowed to the extent of award of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of retirement i.e. 31.7.1991 till the actual date of payment. The said interest may be computed and paid within next three months from today, failing which the respondents will further pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner as litigation expenses which shall be personally borne by the competent authority namely Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.Writ Petition Allowed *******