Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 455 (JHR)

Kishori Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-14

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for direction upon the respondents to grant penal and statutory interest as his post retiral benefits were paid in the year 2016, though he superannuated from service on 31.10.2008. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel and Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6086 of 2013, praying therein for payment of arrears of salary and all his retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 12.01.2015, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 2, i.e. the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi showing entitlement of post retiral dues by filing a fresh representation giving details of his claims along with all supporting documents within two weeks from the date of the order. It was further ordered that on receipt of such representation, respondent no. 2 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. He further submits that in the aforesaid direction there is no whisper about considering the payment of interest. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner is thus barred by the Principle of res judicata. He further submits that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent for a long period in his service career, i.e. from 01.01.2004 till 05.05.2008. Thus, the decision about the said period of absence was to be taken by the Government and the Government considering sympathetically by not taking any major action against this petitioner on the said misconduct, regularized the said period of absence. He lastly submits that the petitioner furnished the name of his wife and other details at very belated stage, which resulted in delay in payment of the retiral benefits. 4. All these three grounds, taken by the State, are not accepted by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2018 and his dues were paid in 2015-2016 after a huge delay. The State has taken a plea of res judicata. 4. All these three grounds, taken by the State, are not accepted by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on 31.10.2018 and his dues were paid in 2015-2016 after a huge delay. The State has taken a plea of res judicata. Their plea is that nothing has been mentioned in the order dated 12.01.2015, passed in W.P.(S) No. 6086 of 2013 about interest therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any interest and his claim is barred by res judicata. 5. The Principle of res judicata applies in a case where issues are decided. No issues were decided in W.P.(S) No. 6086 of 2013. Mere a direction was given to the respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the retiral benefits of the petitioner. This order cannot stands as res judicata for claiming interest. Thus, this ground is not accepted by this Court. 6. So far as the period of unauthorized absence is concerned, as per Mr. Jai Prakash, the Government considering sympathetically condoned the misconduct of the petitioner and regularized that period. When no punitive action had been taken against the petitioner rather his period of unauthorized absence has been regularized by the State, it does not look good for the State to justify the delayed payment of post retiral benefits on the aforesaid ground. If the State would have taken any action for the aforesaid act against the petitioner, the matter would have been different. But the same is not here in this matter. Thus, this ground also fails. 7. So far as other information are concerned, the State being the employer, is expected to have all these information with them in advance and it is not expected that when a person retires, the State will start activating their machinery and start all the paraphernalia for making payment of the post retiral benefits. Thus, this ground also fails. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vijay L. Mehrotra Versus State of U.P. & Others” reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 ”, has held that it is expected that all retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to pay 18% simple interest on the delayed payment, as the justifications were not accepted. 9. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to pay 18% simple interest on the delayed payment, as the justifications were not accepted. 9. In this case also I find that the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2008 and admittedly, his post retiral benefits were paid after 6-8 years. This post retiral benefit is not bounty which is the State is paying to its employee. This amount belongs to the petitioner, who was an employee of the State. The State has withheld the said amount. No money remains idle with the State. One way or the other, it fetches some interest or benefits as the same is utilized. The person, who withholds the said money, earns the said benefit. Thus, the said benefit has to be passed on to the person, who is legally entitled to get it. In this case, the petitioner who is legally entitled to get the money has been deprived of the same for long 6-8 years and the Government has definitely utilized the same. Thus, the interest must be paid to the petitioner for such delayed payment. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings, I direct the State to pay simple interest @ 10% p.a. to the petitioner on the amount of delayed payment, i.e. from the date of accrual (i.e. the date of retirement) till the date of payment. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ application stands allowed.