Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1573 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Jayashree

2022-12-09

ASHOK S.KINAGI, PRASANNA B.VARALE

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. - This intra-court appeal is filed under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 1/10/2021 passed in W.P.No.201302/2018. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the writ Court. Appellants are respondents. The respondent is the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to filing of this writ appeal are as under: The respondent-authorities sanctioned the family pension and paid the same belatedly. The petitioner submitted a representation for payment of interest on a delayed payment. The respondents declined to grant interest. Hence, the petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in declining to grant interest filed a writ petition in W.P.No.201302/2018. The writ Court after perusing the material on record disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent-authorities to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum form the date of the petitioner became entitled to the family pension, till the date the same is released to the petitioner. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, filed this writ appeal. 4. Heard the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-authorities and also the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner is not entitled for interest for the delay period as per the Government Order dtd. 13/9/1994. He submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in granting the interest. He submits that the impugned order is erroneous and against the law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. Heard, perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have fixed the family pension and released the same. There was delay in fixing the family pension and releasing the family pension. The respondents ought to have performed their legal duties within a reasonable time. In the instant case there was a delay on the part of the respondents in performing legal duties in fixing the family pension and releasing the pension amount. The respondents have to pay the interest for the delay caused in releasing the family pension. The respondents ought to have performed their legal duties within a reasonable time. In the instant case there was a delay on the part of the respondents in performing legal duties in fixing the family pension and releasing the pension amount. The respondents have to pay the interest for the delay caused in releasing the family pension. We would like to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the delay in settlement of retirement benefit is frustrating and must be avoided at all cost. Relevant paragraph reads as follows: "5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various 100 governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension: is not a bounty but servant. a right of the government. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case." 9. Yet another decision in the case of Vijay L.Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. & others reported in (2001) 9 SCC 687 at paragraph No.3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement." 10. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Dua Vs. State of Hariyan and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44 has held at paragraph No.14 as under: "14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." 11. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, this Court is of the considered view that, the respondents have failed to perform their legal duties. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for interest for a delayed period. The learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.