Delay in settlement of retirement benefits must be avoided at all costs, and the petitioner was entitled to interest for the delayed period.

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. 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 anoth