Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1393 (RAJ)

Pradeep Kumar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-04

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SAMEER JAIN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. 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 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. 3. Relying upon the judgment of this Court dated 10.02.2022 in Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. 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 v. 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. 4. Relying upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. 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. 5. 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 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. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. 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. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Provision contained in Rule 89 (1) of the Rules 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 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 preceding the month in which the retiral benefits are authorised." 10. The aforesaid provision was considered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). On facts that was also a case where the claim for revised pensionary benefits was raised. The aforesaid provision was considered by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. 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. perforce statutory mandate and that has to be awarded to the appellant." 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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.