Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 728 (MP)

Alka Raikwar (Ku. ) v. State of M. P.

2023-08-28

SUJOY PAUL

body2023
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, finally heard. 2. The singular prayer of petitioner is to direct the respondents to pay 12% interest on arrears of family pension. 3. Shri Anirudh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of petitioner, a Govt. employee, died on 13.10.2010. The petitioner, a dependent of Govt. servant, promptly fulfilled the formalities and prayed for grant of family pension. The request of petition went in vain. Aggrieved, petitioner filed WP No. 14624/2015 which was disposed of on 2.9.2015 by directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of petitioner by passing a speaking order. Since this order was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt petition No. 101 of 2016 which was dismissed as having rendered infructuous because by that time, respondent passed the order dated 17.3.2016 whereby representation of petitioner for grant of family pension was rejected. The petitioner then filed WP No. 7516/2017 assailing the rejection order dated 17.3.2016 which was decided on 30.11.2018. This Court after considering the Pension Rrules opined that petitioner’s claim for family pension deserves to be considered in the light of Rule 47(6) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Since this order was also not complied with, petitioner filed another contempt petition No. 1154/2019. After receiving notices of this case also, the pension payment order was not issued. The Court then by order dated 10.12.2020 directed the personal presence of Dy. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Development Department before the Court. Thereafter respondents issued pension payment order (PPO) and therefore, contempt petition was dismissed. In this order dated 24.6.2021, it was made clear that if petitioner has any other grievance, she shall be at liberty to raise the grievance before appropriate forum. Since family pension was belatedly paid by respondents, the present petition is filed to pay interest on delayed payment on pension. 4. Shri Anirudh Pandey,, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to get family pension with effect from 13.10.2010 as per the Pension Rules but respondents issued PPO only on 29.12.2020. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get interest on delayed payment. 5. Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned G.A. for the State opposed the prayer on the basis of return filed. 6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 8. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get interest on delayed payment. 5. Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned G.A. for the State opposed the prayer on the basis of return filed. 6. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 8. As noticed above, petitioner is interested to get interest on pension only. The petitioner has fought a long drawn battle for her right. There is a chequered history of litigation in the corridors of this Court. The history shows that petitioner was required to contest all avoidable pieces of litigation. Under the rules, petitioner was certainly entitled to get the benefit of pension. After a long drawn contest, the petitioner although received the pension payment order and family pension, she was not given the benefit of interest on delayed payment. 9. The return filed by the State does not throw any light which may show that delay is attributable to the petitioner. The delay in making payment of family pension is certainly attributable to the Department. The apex Court in (1994) 2 SCC 240 (Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (retd.) and others), opined as under:- "4. ..... Once it is established that an amount legally due to a party was not paid to it, the party responsible for withholding the same must pay interest at a rate considered reasonable by the Court." (Emphasis supplied) The same principal was followed by this Court in 2013 (1) MPLJ 53 (State of M.P. and others v. Ramji Das Agarwal). In the recent judgment, in (2022) 4 SCC 627 (A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College), the apex Court opined as under:- "However, because of the inter se dispute between the Management, Secretary and the Government on who is responsible for the delay in making the payment and/or settling the dues, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his." (Emphasis supplied) In para-5 of this judgment, the apex Court directed the respondent to pay the interest. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are wholly responsible for belated payment of family pension. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get 6% interest on such delayed payment. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents are wholly responsible for belated payment of family pension. Thus, petitioner is entitled to get 6% interest on such delayed payment. The respondents shall calculate the amount on the arrears already paid from due date i.e. 13.10.2010 and pay the interest on the arrears of pension to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order, failing which it will carry 8% further interest till the date of actual payment. 11. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.