In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions against the respondents to pay the pension and other retirement benefits along with interest at 18% per annum to the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to calculate interest at 8% p.a. for the delay caused.
In 1974, the petitioner was appointed as a Steno Typist with the erstwhile State of Bihar, and was posted at New Delhi with the Standing Council, Government of Jharkhand. He completed his entire service and retired on 31-03-2009 from Delhi.
After the Government’s policy decision to upgrade the post of Steno Typist to Personal Assistant, the petitioner was upgraded to Personal Assistant by an Office Order dated 23-06-1995 by the undivided State of Bihar. After Bihar was reorganized into two successor states, namely Bihar and Jharkhand, through the Reorganization Act, 2000, the Central Government was empowered to allocate employees to both states, and hence, the petitioner was allocated to Jharkhand. However, he remained posted in Delhi until his retirement.
The petitioner found several discrepancies in a Provisional Seniority List of personal assistants prepared by the respondent, as details against his name were left blank and his juniors were shown to be above him. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation in July 2006 to the Standing Counsel and the other respondents, but no action was taken. After submission of another representation, the respondents directed the Standing Council to furnish relevant details and documents, including the confidential reports, to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion. Despite receipt of documents and information from the Standing Counsel, the petitioner was neither considered for promotion nor informed about the status of processing of his pension papers.
In 2009, the petitioner made a couple of representations seeking information regarding the processing of his pension papers and the release of post-retirement benefits, and another representation regarding the processing of his service book and related documents. After completing 34 years of service with the respondents, no action was taken by them to release the petitioners’ retirement benefits, or to pay arrears of salaries after the 6th Pay Commission, let alone to grant regular promotion to the post of private secretary.
The petitioner visited the office of the Law Secretary (respondent 3) multiple times for his pension and post-retirement benefits and completed all required formalities, after which he was directed to approach the Finance Secretary (respondent 4) to complete further formalities, such as verification. Thereafter, he was again required to complete additional formalities. In June 2009, the petitioner requested the Resident Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand (respondent 1) and the Law Secretary to grant him a provisional pension till finalisation of the pension, but no action was taken.
Despite several representations, and after a delay of about 6 to 9 months, respondent 1 eventually released the petitioner’s GPF, leave encashment, GIS and arrears of salary by way of cheque, but without any interest for the said delay. After repeated representations and reminder letters by the petitioner, respondent 4 addressed a letter to respondent 1, wherein the responsibility for the grant of post-retirement benefits and processing of pension papers was shifted to respondent 1, which clearly showed that they were only evading responsibility.
Thereafter, the petitioner received a copy of an Office Order dated 03-12-2010 from the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha (respondent 5), granting him promotion under the ACP scheme from 26-06-2007, instead of a regular promotion to the post of private secretary, but no arrears of salary difference were granted to him. The petitioner claimed that the respondents had been harassing him unnecessarily and that there was an unjustified delay in processing his pension papers.
Considering whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for delay in the release of his benefits, the Court referred to various cases and noted that the petitioner retired on 31-03-2009, which meant his retirement benefits should have been released within three months. The Court said that even though the respondents had tried to explain the delay by claiming procedural challenges, it was no explanation, especially because the matter was regarding pensionary and retirement benefits. The Court stated that the delay in pension and other benefits is a deprivation of the right to life and liberty as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payments.
Regarding the rate at which the interest was to be granted, the Court referred to Article 65(1) of the Central Service (Pension) Rules, 2021, and found it evident that in case of delay beyond three months, the interest payable would be as notified. Hence, the Court awarded 8% interest to the petitioner, considering the variation in the GPF interest rate from 2008 to 2023.
Further, the Court noted the petitioner’s contention that he had commuted his pension at the time of retirement, which got over on 31-03-2024, and that he was now entitled to full pension. It was observed that the petition was filed in 2011 and that the commuting of the pension ended during its pendency. The Court said that to get the same restored, the petitioner would have to move an application and follow the procedure. It was also directed that, if such an application had been filed or would be filed, it was to be processed expeditiously within three months.
Thus, the Court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to calculate interest at 8% p.a. for the delay caused and to release the amount within eight weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Sanjeet Trivedi, Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Mr. Ishank Gupta, Ms. Prachi Patwal
For Respondents – Mr. Jayesh Garurav
