1. Dispute over entitlement to interest on delayed payment of revised pension for retired teachers of government-aided private colleges under pension revision rules. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 956
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
K.C. Kaushik and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 5017 of 2023) [Arising from the judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 in LPA No. 2396 of 2017 in CWP No. 8988 of 2015 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)]
WITH
K.R. Malik and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11720 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 5018 of 2023) [Arising from the judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 in LPA No. 1490 of 2018 in CWP No. 10318 of 2015 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)]
WITH
Inderjeet Bharti and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11712 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 5019 of 2023) [Arising from the judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 in LPA No. 578 of 2018 in CWP No. 11702 of 2015 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)]
WITH
Savitri Malik and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11713 of 2024 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 8613-8619 of 2023) [Arising from the judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 in LPA No. 2396/2017 against CWP No. 8988/2015, LPA No. 1454 of 2018 in CWP No. 10207/2015, LPA No. 1490/2018 in CWP No. 10318 of 2015, LPA No. 1102/2018 in CWP No. 22924/2015, LPA No. 1766/2018 in CWP No. 11288/2015, LPA No. 578/2018 in CWP No. 11702/2015 and LPA No. 1841 /2018 in CWP No. 11654/2015 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh)]
Decided On : 21-10-2024
Important Points
The court established that under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, there is no entitlement to interest on delayed pension payments.
Subject
Administrative Law - Pension Law
Act Referred
HARYANA CIVIL SERVICES REVISED PAY RULES: R.6
Headnote
Pension - Revised Pension Claims - Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Rules, particularly Rule 6, which governs pension entitlements and clarified that interest on delayed payments is not mandated under the Rules, influencing the decision to deny interest to appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, retired lecturers from Government Aided Colleges in Haryana, sought revised pension and interest on delayed payments, claiming parity with Government College lecturers. Their petitions were initially accepted but later challenged by the State, leading to a High Court ruling denying interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were not entitled to interest on the delayed payment of revised pension as they were considered 'fence-sitters' and had not contested the merits of their claims earlier.
Issues: Whether the appellants are entitled to interest on the belated payment of revised pension from 01.01.2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a provision for interest in the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, and the appellants' status as 'fence-sitters' precluded them from claiming interest.
Result: The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to deny interest.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naveen Goel, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Yatindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiv Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Ms. Pallvi Hooda, Adv. Ms. Tannu, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Naveen Goel, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim interest based on State's undertaking and parity; State contends no rule for interest on retrospective revisions and oral concessions are non-binding. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Appellants are fence-sitters who waited for rights to crystallize; parity with original litigants precludes interest; oral instructions without written authority are insufficient. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Persons seeking parity with original litigants cannot be placed on a better footing by receiving interest when original litigants were denied it. (Para 17 , 19 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court order denying interest on delayed payment of revised pension upheld. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Are retirees entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retrospectively revised pensions?
Generally, pay scale revisions are retrospective in nature and are granted without interest unless specifically provided for in the applicable rules. (Para 13 )
7. Can litigants claiming parity with original successful litigants receive benefits that the original litigants did not receive?
No. Litigants claiming parity cannot be placed on a better footing than the original litigants. Those who wait for rights to crystallize before filing are considered fence-sitters and are not entitled to additional benefits like interest. (Para 17 , 19 )
8. Are oral instructions given by a government official to counsel in court binding on the State?
No. Concessions made by government counsel are not binding unless supported by written instructions from a responsible officer. Relying on oral instructions may lead to factual errors and does not justify unjust enrichment. (Para 18 , 22 )
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh5 [For brevity “the High Court”] in LPA No. 2396 of 2017 (O&M) etc. cases [ State of Haryana and Another v. Banarsi Dass and Others ] by which, the High Court has allowed the appeals filed by the State/respondents and set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2016 in CWP No. 8988 of 2015 and other connected cases, insofar as the grant of interest to the writ petitioners/ appellants herein.
3. The appellants were working as Lecturers/Principals in the Government Aided Private Colleges in the State of Haryana and they retired from service prior to 01.01.2006. Claiming parity with the Lecturers/Librarians of the Government Colleges in relation to the increase of their pension, based on the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 20097 [Hereinafter shortly referred as “the Rules, 2009”] the appellants preferred the aforesaid civil writ petitions for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the orders of the respondent authorities denying revised pension to the appellants as that of the employees/teachers of the Government Colleges in Haryana, and to direct the respondents to grant pension to the appellants in the corresponding scale of Rs.37400 - 67000 + AGP8 [Academic Grade Pay] Rs.9000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 with interest.
4. In the course of hearing of the civil writ petitions, the State counsel produced a copy of the letter dated 07.11.2016 sent by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, Chandigarh, addressed to the Director Higher Education, Haryana, Panchkula, by which the State had agreed to give revised pension to the retired employees of the Private Aided Colleges, and also gave an undertaking on the basis of the instructions furnished by one Assistant by name Preet Singh, who was present in the Court, to the effect that the State would also pay interest on the delayed payment. In view of the said letter and the oral instructions, the learned counsel for the appellants sought to withdraw the petitions. The learned Single Judge recorded all these statements and dismissed the civil writ petitions as withdrawn on 30.11.2016, besides issuing a direction to release the arrears of pension to the appellants within a period of three months. Subsequently, on applications, by order dated 23.12.2016, the word “w.e.f. 01.01.2006” was inserted after the words “revised pension” in the said orders dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8988 of 2015 and connected cases.
5. Between 2017 and 2018, the State disbursed the arrears of revised pension to the appellants. However, they preferred a Review Application bearing No. RA-CW-383-2017, seeking to review the learned Single Judge's orders dated 30.11.2016 passed in CWP No. 8988 of 2015 and connected matters, on the premise that payment of interest on the amount of arrears to be paid w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was not justified as the decision to revise the pension in the pay band of Rs. 37400 - 67000 + 9000 AGP was taken and approved by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, vide U.O. No. 66/5/2016-2FD-II/28139 dated 07.10.2016 and therefore, interest on belated payment of pension was payable not from 01.01.2006 but from 07.10.2016. By order dated 16.08.2017, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Review application, with liberty to the State to approach the appellate forum.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in the Review Application, the State preferred LPA before the Division Bench seeking to set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2016, to the extent of granting payment of interest as clarified on 23.12.2016 in the civil writ petitions and on 16.08.2017 in the review application. The High Court allowed the State’s appeal
