Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 35 (RAJ)

Ishra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-03

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Ishra Ram, who had been serving on the post of driver with the Dy. Director, Government Agriculture Research Centre, Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer and who retired voluntarily w.e.f. 31.05.2000, has filed this writ petition stating the grievance against denial of payment of his retiral dues; and has sought directions against the respondents for payment of arrears, interest and compensation. 2. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that though the petitioner voluntarily retired from service with effect from 31.05.2000 but an order came to be passed by the respondents on 20.11.2000 alleging that he was mistakenly given a jump from the pay of Rs. 565/- (in the pay scale of Rs. 490-840) to the pay of Rs. 610/-; and proposing to effect certain recoveries after reducing his pay while asserting that the mistake was required to be rectified. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') with the submissions that he was unnecessarily being denied the retiral benefits and with the prayer for quashing of the said order dated 20.11.2000. The respondents contended before the Tribunal that they had made the payment of the earned leave and insurance amount; and that they had proposed to make payment of provisional pension but this proposal was declined by the petitioner himself. It was contended that an amount of Rs. 97,491/- was recoverable from the petitioner because of jump in pay wrongly given; and that the pension case of the petitioner could not be finalised for this reason. 3. In its order dated 25.02.2002 (Annex.P/1), the Tribunal found no justification in the impugned order dated 20.11.2000 whereby the benefit given to the petitioner-appellant 15 years back was sought to be withdrawn; and that too, only after his retirement and without notice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 20.11.2000, and directed finalisation of the pension case of the petitioner within three months. The Tribunal ordered as under:- " ifj.kkeLo:i vihy vihykFkhZ Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vkns'k fnukad 20-11-2000 vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vc izR;FkhZx.k ;Fkk'kh?kz vihykFkhZ dh isa'ku ds ekeys dks vfUre dj ns vkSj ;g ns[ks fd 3 ekg dh vof/k esa vihykFkhZ dks mls ns; osru ,oa vU; lsokfuo`fr ykHk izkIr gks tkosA " 4. The respondents herein chose to prefer a writ petition in this Court (CWP No.3730/2002) against the order so passed by the Tribunal. It was contended that the jump as given to the petitioner had been a mistake that could always be rectified. The learned Single Judge, however, was not impressed with the submissions made in the writ petition; and observed that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) had not been able to show as to what was the mistake committed and such an assertion could not be accepted on mere ipse dixit of the authorities. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order dated 16.10.2006, inter alia, with the following observations:- "......But grounds of the writ petition in assailing the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal do not make out as to what was the mistake which the respondent sought to rectify. Such an assertion on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted on their ipse dixit. They have to substantiate as to how and in what manner the pay scale granted to the respondent No.3 way back on 26th November, 1985 was wrongly given. The order dated 20th November, 2000 also does not disclose any such reason which may bring home their argument with regard to alleged mistake." 5. Aggrieved with the order aforesaid, the respondents filed an intra-court appeal, being SAW No.765/2008. This appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.12.2008. 6. The petitioner has averred that after the decision of the writ petition and so also after the decision of the intra-court appeal, he approached the respondents for making payment but the respondents No.3 issued an order only on 26.05.2009 whereby the deducted amount of Rs. 97,491/- was ordered to be paid and the revised pension was also ordered to be paid. The petitioner has further averred that the illegally deducted amount of Rs. 97,491/- was paid to him after an inordinate delay of 9 years of retirement and the payment of revised pension was yet to be made. The petitioner has specifically averred that the payment was withheld despite the fact that there was no stay order passed in favour of the respondents either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. 7. The petitioner has specifically averred that the payment was withheld despite the fact that there was no stay order passed in favour of the respondents either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. 7. The respondents have submitted in their reply that the matter was sent to the Law Department after the order of the Division Bench; and upon receiving the decision that no SLP was to be filed, the amount of Rs. 97,491/- was paid to the petitioner on 02.06.2009 and deposited in his savings account. It is also submitted that the arrears of pension to the tune of Rs. 19,580/- were paid under CPO No.402980 (Annex.R/1) and the arrears of gratuity to the tune of Rs. 20,183/- were paid under CPO No.405043 (Annex.R/2). The respondents submit that they had not illegally and willfully detained the amount; and that the delay had not been intentional but the same had merely been a "procedural delay". It is also submitted that the petitioner was not forced to suffer any hardship as he was requested to accept the provisional pension that he declined. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that in this matter, the respondents have acted in a wholly irresponsible manner and the claim of interest as made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 9. Though it is an admitted position that the withheld amount has since been paid to the petitioner and revision of pension has also been carried out but the requisite payment having been made after an inordinate and inexplicable delay, the petitioner is clearly entitled for interest on such delayed payment. 10. A reference to the background aspects makes it clear that the petitioner voluntarily retired from service on 31.05.2000. The benefit of pay as allowed to the petitioner as back as on 16.05.1985 was sought to be withdrawn without any plausible cause by an order issued nearly six months after his retirement i.e., on 20.11.2000. The petitioner was forced to question the same by way of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated 25.02.2002 specifically pronounced against the respondents and found that there was no justification in passing of the questioned order dated 20.11.2000 whereby the benefit allowed to the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn about 15 years later. The petitioner was forced to question the same by way of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated 25.02.2002 specifically pronounced against the respondents and found that there was no justification in passing of the questioned order dated 20.11.2000 whereby the benefit allowed to the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn about 15 years later. While setting aside the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the respondents to ensure payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner within three months. Even if it be assumed that the respondents were entertaining any doubt about the pay scale admissible to the petitioner, the issue, in whatever form arising between the parties, stood settled with the decision of the Tribunal on 25.02.2002. It is difficult to find any reason or justification where for the respondents did not make payment to the petitioner even after three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal despite specific directions. 11. Although the respondents chose to drag the petitioner in the writ petition and then in the intra-court appeal in regard to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal but then, the petitioner has categorically averred that there had not been any stay order against the order so passed by the Tribunal, whether in the writ petition or in the intra-court appeal. This categorical assertion of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondents. In this position, the respondents appear thoroughly unjustified when they chose not to make payment to the petitioner even after expiry of three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal. It is also clear that the matter was dragged in further litigation only at the choice of the respondents and this Court, in the writ petition and so also in the intra-court appeal, found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Looking to the nature of claim of the petitioner i.e., of retiral benefits, the litigation as taken up by the respondents could only sound as luxury for them but at the same time, of unnecessary harassment for the petitioner. When the respondents chose to drag the matter in further litigation, they did it at their own peril and ought to bear the burnt. 12. When the respondents chose to drag the matter in further litigation, they did it at their own peril and ought to bear the burnt. 12. Though it is the case of the respondents that they made the payment after dismissal of the intra-court appeal by the Division Bench but the question is as to whether they could have withheld the payment of retiral dues by granting stay to themselves despite there being no stay order from the Court? The answer has to be in the negative. 13. The respondents have chosen to employ the expression "procedural delay" as being the reason for delayed payment. There was absolutely no procedural delay but the delay was caused for sheer apathy and insensitiveness of the concerned authorities of the respondents whoever dealt with the matter at whatever stage. There was absolutely no reason nor any justification that the authorities concerned with the respondents chose to make a retired employee wait for an abnormally long period of nine years before he was paid the illegally deducted amount and all his retiral dues. The suggestion about the respondents having asked him to accept the provisional pension does not operate against the rights and entitlement of the petitioner to receive his legal dues. In any case, the provisional pension was declined by the petitioner in the year 2001. The issue, in whatever form arising between the parties, was settled with the decision of the Tribunal on 25.02.2002. Thereafter, only by putting the matter in the process of further litigation, the respondents could not have deferred payment to the petitioner unless there was any order to the contrary by the higher court. As noticed, the petitioner's categorical averment that there was no stay against the order of the Tribunal has not been denied by the respondents. 14. The delay having been caused in the matter of payment of retiral benefits indisputably; and the delay having not been on account of any failure on the part of the petitioner in compliance of the procedure laid down, the petitioner is directly entitled to interest at least after expiry of three months from the date of order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 25.02.2002 and directed the respondents to ensure payment of retiral benefits within three months. The Tribunal passed the order on 25.02.2002 and directed the respondents to ensure payment of retiral benefits within three months. In the given set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that on the entire delayed payment, the respondents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 25.05.2002 (three months from the date of order of Tribunal) until the date of actual payment, in keeping with the principles underlying Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed; the petitioner is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on every component of delayed payment from 25.05.2002 until the date of actual payment. This amount of interest shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within 30 days from today, failing which, the payable amount of interest itself shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 16. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the respondents to fix the responsibility of the persons concerned for the delay in payment of retiral dues to the petitioner and to recover the amount of interest payable under this order. It is, however, made clear that fixing of responsibility and recovering of the amount from the persons responsible shall be taken up by the respondents only after making payment to the petitioner and for this process of fixing up the responsibility and making recovery, the respondents shall not be entitled to delay the payment to the petitioner. 17. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this writ petition quantified at Rs. 11,000/- (eleven thousand).Petition allowed. *******