The court established that under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, there is no entitlement to interest on delayed pension payments.

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 appeals