2012 Supreme(Bom) 1086

In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
A.P. LAVANDE & U.V. BAKRE, JJ.
Smt. Fatima Braganza, retd. (since deceased) & Others
Versus
The Hon'ble The High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2005
Decided on : 21-06-2012

Headnote:MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES, 1998 - Rule 129-B(5)(b) - Interest on the arrear - Enhancement of amount of pension - Held - If the enhancement in the amount of pension already paid to the Government servant on his retirement is as a result of decision of Government taken subsequent to the retirement of the Government servant on account of liberalization in the provision of Rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of Government servant is concerned, then no interest on the arrear is payable.

       From the above provision of Rule 129-B(5)(b) of the said Rules, it is clear that if the enhancement in the amount of pension already paid to the Government servant on his retirement is as a result of decision of Government taken subsequent to the retirement of the Government servant on account of liberalisation in the provisions of these rules from a date prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant concerned, then no interest on the arrears of pension is payable. The petitioner retired on 28.2.1997, after office hours. The pension case was finalised before the date of retirement and the petitioner started getting the pension benefits on time. There was no delay in regular payment of pension benefit on unrevised pay scale, to the petitioner, from time to time. Subsequently, by resolution dated 5.1.1999, the Government fixed the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 8,300/- retrospectively as from 1.1.1996, in the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- and her pay was raised to Rs. 8,500/- 1.1.1997 and so on. Insofar as the arrears of pension benefits on account of revised pay, as from 1.1.1997 are concerned, the same were paid to the petitioner on 16.5.2004. The amount, according to the petitioner, is Rs. 1,18,009/-. Hence the question, of claiming. interest on arrears of pension benefits right from the beginning does not arise. Sub-rule 5(b) of Rule 129-B of the said Rules has denied right to the petitioner to claim interest on account of delay in payment of arrears of pension.

       MAHARASHTRA CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED PAY) RULES, 1998 - Rule 129-B(5)(b) - Interest on the arrear - Question whether payment of arrear of pension in terms of revised pay scale can be made after any number of years, at the whims of Government, under the garb of the rule - Held - No. - The question is whether the payment of the arrears of pension in terms of revised pay scale can be made after any number of years, at the whims of the Government, under the garb of the said sub rule (5)(b) of Rule 129-B of the said Rules? The answer to the above would certainly be in the negative. In the present case, payment of actual pension benefit on revised pay scale was not paid to the petitioner till 16.5.2004 and she started getting the said benefit as from 16.5.2004. The petitioner continued to receive the pension benefits on unrevised pay scale, till 16.5.2004. According to the petitioner, there is inordinate delay of seven years which is from 1.1.1997 to 16.5.2004. Though, inordinate delay in payment of rightful dues cannot be justified, however, In terms of the said sub-rule (5)(b) of Rule 129-B, of the said Rules, reasonable delay in payment of such dues, on account unavoidable circumstances, and genuine administrative procedure, can be understood and can be taken into account. Once the report of the 5th Pay Commission was received, reasonable time was taken by the Finance department of the Government to fix the pay of the employees. By Government resolution No. 1298/P.K.- 1698/SER-10 dated 5.1.1999, the pay of the petitioner came to be fixed at Rs. 8,300/-. The notification of the Government of Maharashtra regarding revision of pay scale was received in the office of the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 28.4.1999 and orders regarding fixation of pay as per the revised pay scale were issued somewhere in the month of June,1999. On 24.6.1999, the office of the High Court of Bombay at Goa prepared the statement of revision of pay, on the basis of 5th Pay Commission, in respect of the petitioner. On 17.8.1999, the petitioner made an application to the Additional Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa, requesting to forward her application dated 17.8.1999 to the Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay for sanction of Revised Pension as per Government Resolution No. 1099/238/SER-4, dated 29.7.1999. This application of the petitioner was forwarded to the Accounts Officer, Accountant General, Maharashtra, Bombay vide letter dated 23.8.1999 and the Accountant General in turn by letter dated 18.9.2000 (received in Panaji Bench office on 29.9.2000) returned the petitioner’s case requesting office of the Additional Registrar, Panaji, to forward the Service Book for final revision after fixing pay as on 1.1.1996. Thus, there was a delay on the part of Accountant General’s office of over one year to reply to the letter dated 23.8.1999. Thereafter, there was a series of correspondence with the Accountant General regarding the pension case as there were various objections raised by the Accountant General/Pay Verification Unit from time to time, which were cleared.