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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Sovakar Guru – Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and Ors. – Opposite Parties
WPC (OA) No.1553 of 2017
Decided On : 27-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. Mohapatra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sonak Mishra, SC

Employees are entitled to interest on delayed payment of salaries and pensions, as it is their rightful entitlement and a matter of right recognized by the Constitution and applicable rules and regulations.

Headnote:

Interest Payment - Delayed Salary Arrears - Article 21, Article 300A - State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021; Union of India & Ors., v. Dr. J.K Goel, 1995 SCC Supl. (3) 161 (1995) SCALE (3) 550; D.D. Tewari vs. Uttar Haryana Bulivitran Nigam Limited and others, Civil Appeal No. 7113 of 2014; S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.184 of 2008

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought interest on delayed payment of arrears of salary. The court found that the delay was due to administrative latches and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of arrears of salary, citing the right to life under Article 21 and the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Issues: Delayed payment of arrears of salary, entitlement to interest, administrative latches, equity in deferred payments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents and legal provisions to establish the petitioner's entitlement to interest on delayed payment, emphasizing the right to life and property under the Constitution, and the principle that employees should not suffer due to inaction of the employer.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the State to pay simple interest computed at the rate of 6% per annum on account of deferred salaries within 30 days.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner, insofar as payment of arrears is concerned, has already been redressed but the interest component of the amount which has been held up for the last twenty-one years, is required to be paid.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner joined service as the Headmaster in Panchayat High School, Chandanbhati, in the district of Bolangir which was a non-Government aided educational institution. However, the school was taken over by the Government with effect from 07.06.1994 and, therefore, the Petitioner was rendering his services as a Government servant till his superannuation on 28.02.2001.

5. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Petitioner, being a 74-year-old man, was made to run from pillar to post to get his legitimate dues but owing to administrative latches, the same couldn’t materialize. Therefore, the redressal of grievance of the Petitioner would remain incomplete if he were to be denied of the interest component that is payable to him as a result of delay.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the court is of the opinion that as there was a delay in the payment of arrears of salary for which the Petitioner is not at all responsible, he is entitled to the interest on the delayed payment. Because of the administrative latches, there was a delay in the payment of arrears of salary and/or settling the dues and hence, the retired employee should not be made to suffer for no fault of his.

7. It is well-settled that salaries and pensions are due as a matter of right to employees, and, as the case maybe, to former employees who have served the State. Since, the petitioner rendered his services till superannuation as a government servant, his entitlement to the payment of salary is intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 and to right to property which is recognized by Article 300A of the Constitution.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr v. Smt. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2021, observed that:

    “The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law. Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State.”

9. There is no dispute about the delayed payment as it was withheld for insufficient reasons. There is no material justification to take such time for fixing arrears of the petitioner. On this undisputed position, the court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the Opposite Party regarding non-payment of interest without any specific provisions in the service conditions. The late decision taken by the opposite party is attributable to administrative latches across different levels and the same cannot be the reason to withheld the payment to the employees who admittedly worked at the relevant time. The fact remains that there was delay in making payment of arrears of salary and other benefits with or without intention, is immaterial. In view of the admitted position on record that the payment was not made on due dates according to service conditions, there is no disputed question of facts involved.

10. Moreover, the employees cannot be allowed to suffer because of inaction on the part of the employer for no fault of the employees. The employee is definitely entitled to get the payment as per the service conditions on due dates and/or in a

        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