Entitlement to interest on delayed pensionary benefits when the state fails to ensure timely disbursement, and the jurisprudential basis for granting interest when one person's money is used by another.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-10) by which the claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest has been declined.

2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned herein for correct appreciation of the issue in hand.

3. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Jeet Bahadur was working as a Cook in Police Mess, Rohtak and he served the department for a period of 27 years starting from 01.02.1978 till he retired on 31.01.2005. After Shri Jeet Bahadur retired, he was granted pension and retiral benefits. Unfortunately, Shri Jeet Bahadur died on 03.02.2008. The petitioner, who is a legally wedded wife of Shri Jeet Bahadur, approached the respondents for release of the family pension in her favour but the same was not released to her by the respondents and ultimately, the petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP No. 5433 of 2017 titled as Kamla Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others, which petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order with regard to the claim of the petitioner for the grant of family pension after the death of her husband, namely, Shri Jeet Bahadur. Ultimately, the respondents passed an order on 08.09.2017 granting the benefit of family pension in favour of the petitioner along with arrears. The benefit of family pension has been granted to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband. As the benefits were released to the petitioner in the year 2017 though, the same were required to be released in the year 2008, the petitioner claimed the benefit of interest on the arrears paid to her, which benefit has been declined by the respondents by the impugned order dated 03.10.2019 (Annexure P-10). The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of Shri Jeet Bahadur, she was entitled for the family pension immediately after the death of Shri Jeet Bahadur in the year 2008 but the same was only granted to her after a period of 09 years i.e. in the 2017, hence, the grant of arrears should also include the interest as the respondents have retained the amount with them and used.

5. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply and in the reply, the respondents have not disputed the said fact. The only reason given for not granting the interest is that after the death of Jeet Bahadur, the respondents were enquiring about the fact whether, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Jeet Bahadur or not, hence, the department was well within its right to withhold the family pension till the claim of the petitioner is established, hence, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of interest has rightly been declined.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents themselves have allowed the benefit of family pension in favour of the petitioner from the due date i.e. 04.02.2008 onwards and have also released the arrears, it is clear that the petitioner was entitled for the said benefit from the day one after the death of her husband. The respondents took their own time i.e. a period of 09 years to verify the fact whether, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Jeet Bahadur or not. Once, the petitioner was not at fault and the respondents took exceptionally long time to ascertain the fact whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Jeet Bahadur or not, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. It is a clear cut case where, the petitioner has been caused prejudice.

8. Further, as per the settled principle of law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) SCT 468, the petitioner becomes entitled for the interest on the delayed release of the pensionary benefits. The relevant paragraph of said judgment is as und