SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 553

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, J.
Raju Ram Kodecha S/o Shri Bheekha Ram Kodecha - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13023/2022
Decided On : 22-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Trilok Joshi, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For the Respondent: Mr. Sarwan Kumar

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that retirees are entitled to interest on delayed pension payments when the delay is not attributable to their actions, reinforcing the principle that pension is a right earned through service.

Headnote:

INTEREST - Pension and Retiral Benefits - Rule 80, Rule 81, Rule 89 of Pension Rules, 1996 - The court emphasized the mandatory provisions of the Pension Rules, particularly Rules 80 and 81, which require timely processing of pension papers to prevent financial hardship for retirees. It interpreted Rule 89 to establish the right to interest on delayed payments, asserting that pension is a right earned through service, not a charity. The court's decision was influenced by the failure of the respondents to process the petitioner's pension timely, leading to a directive for interest payment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Headmaster, sought interest on delayed pension and retiral benefits after submitting the necessary documents post-retirement. The respondents issued the Pension Payment Order and gratuity but revised the amounts, leading to delays despite the petitioner's repeated grievances.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in processing the petitioner's pension was due to objections raised by the Pension Department, not any fault of the petitioner. It highlighted the importance of timely processing of pension papers as mandated by the Pension Rules.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of his pension and retiral benefits due to administrative delays.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, if the payment of retiral benefits is delayed beyond 60 days without fault on the part of the retiree, the retiree is entitled to interest at 9% per annum. The court emphasized that pension is a right and not a discretionary benefit.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to calculate and pay the interest on the delayed pension and retiral benefits within three months.

ORDER :

Arun Monga, J.

1. Petitioner inter alia, seeks directions to the respondents to grant him interest on the delayed payment of pension / retiral benefits, gratuity as well as other benefits due after superannuation, with effect from the date of his entitlement.

2. Briefly speaking, relevant facts, as pleaded in the petition

2.1 The petitioner was initially appointed as a Senior Teacher. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the position of Headmaster on a "Patey Vetan" basis in 2007. Subsequently, via an order dated 12.06.2013, the petitioner was confirmed in the same post for the vacancy year 2009-2010.

2.2 Upon his retirement from the position of Headmaster, the petitioner submitted the requisite documents to the respective authorities for the purpose of pension and other service benefits. The respondents issued the Pension Payment Order, Gratuity amount, and leave encashment in favor of the petitioner via an order dated 08.01.2022.

2.3 While disbursing the pension and gratuity amounts, the respondents revised the payable amount. Additionally, the total sanctioned sum of gratuity was revised. The petitioner repeatedly submitted grievances through various representations, requesting the respondent authorities to sanction his legitimate pension and other retirement benefits, but no action was taken. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Stand take in the reply is that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2021 from the position of Headmaster, Secondary School. The petitioner's pension case was sent to the Pension Department, Bikaner on 27.01.2021 by the Chief Block Education Officer, Gadra Road, Barmer. The Pension Department raised certain objections regarding the disposal of his case via a letter dated 25.02.2021.

3.1 Thereafter, necessary proceedings were conducted, and the petitioner's pension documents were resent to the Pension Department on 21.04.2021. The Pension Department again raised certain objections via letters dated 26.05.2021 and 26.07.2021. All the objections were addressed by the Education Department. There was no intentional or deliberate delay in the disposal of the pension case, and therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case file.

5. The only issue remaining for adjudication before this Court is the interest payable to the petitioner for the delayed remittance of his pensionary dues and regular monthly pension. From the undisputed facts, it emerges that there was indeed a delay by the department due to the objections raised by the Pension Department. This resulted in back-and-forth correspondence. Ultimately, after satisfying the objections, the necessary remittance was made to the petitioner.

6. Specific provisions in the service rules are designed to address such situations, stipulating that the pensionary and retiral dues of a retiring employee should be processed well in advance of their retirement. This is to ensure that the retiree does not face any financial hardship post-retirement.

7. It is well-established law that a pension is neither a bounty nor a charity, nor a distribution of largesse by the State. It is a hard-earned benefit accrued to an employee after rendering decades of service, to be received post-superannuation.

8. In the context of starting the process of remittance of pension well in advance prior to retirement, reference may be had to Rule 80 and Rule 81 of Pension Rules, 1996 which is extracted hereinbelow: -

    “80. Preparation of Pension papers.

Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement whichever is earlier.

81. Stages for the completion of pension papers.

(1) The Head of Office shall divide the period of preparatory work of two years referred to in Rule 80 in the following three

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top