Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25684
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, K. Babu, JJ
G.RAGHUNATHAN, – Appellant
Versus
COFFEE BOARD – Respondent
WA/578/2021
P.B.KRISHNAN, SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.SABU GEORGE, E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.), SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA (R3), M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC (R1 & R2), K.JOHN MATHAI
Retirement benefits are a constitutional right, and delays in disbursement justify the claim for interest under CCS (Pension) Rules, reflecting the need for timely compliance by authorities.
Headnote:
Retirement Benefits - Writ Petition - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 65, Rule 68 - The court interpreted provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules regarding timely disbursement of retirement benefits and administrative responsibility, leading to a conclusion of entitlement for the delayed interest.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant retired after 36 years of service, sought timely disbursement of retirement benefits, and claimed interest on delayed payments. Despite timely submissions, benefits were only processed months later due to administrative issues and Pay Commission delays.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with the statutory duty to disburse retirement benefits in a timely manner, attributing the delay primarily to administrative lapses rather than the appellant's actions.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on retirement benefits due to delayed disbursement, and if the delay affects the legality of the writ petition's institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to interest for the delayed payment based on statutory provisions and precedents, emphasizing the importance of timely rights in retirement benefits.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's judgment, and the respondents were ordered to pay interest on the delayed retirement benefits.
JUDGMENT
K.BABU, J.
This appeal arises from the judgment dated 28-01-2021 in W.P(C)No.4120/2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any reliefs to the appellant/petitioner and closed the writ petition.
2. The appellant instituted the writ petition with the following prayers:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P18.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to consider Ext.P19 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(vi) Grant the petitioner such other appropriate reliefs that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant. &
(vii) Award the petitioner the costs of this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.M.Gopikirishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2, and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for respondent No.3.
4. The appellant served the Coffee Board for 36 years and retired as a Junior Liaison Officer on 29-08-2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. The retirement benefits were not disbursed to the appellant within one month of the retirement. The appellant submitted a series of representations. The retirement benefits were disbursed only in April, 2009. Hence, the appellant sought interest for the delayed payment of amounts due to him.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the appellant, contending that the delay caused in disbursing the retirement benefits was not deliberate or intentional. It was further submitted that the delay caused at different levels was mainly on account of the implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission and would not have arisen in any normal circumstances. Respondents 1 and 2 further submitted that the delay in disposal of cases of pension fixation of officials in 'pay-cell' was mainly due to the dearth of trained personnel, which hampered the speedy disposal of such cases. Respondents 1 and 2 also contended that the writ petition was filed five years after the disbursement of the retirement benefits and the appellant has not explained the delay in instituting the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per Rule 65(1)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Accounts Officer shall, on receipt of the pension papers, apply the requisite checks, record the account enfacement and assess the amount of pension and gratuity and issue the payment order not later than one month in advance of the date of retirement of the Government servant. It is further contended that the Chairman or the Director of Finance has not acted in terms of the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 despite the fact that the appellant had applied for superannuation pension on 25-02-2008 itself with all relevant records. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that provisional pension should have been paid to the appellant in case of anticipated delay in disbursement of retirement benefits in view of the O.M No.11(6)-E, V(A)/73 dated 22-07-1974 of the Ministry of Finance.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 relying on Anx.R1(a) submitted that the appellant as early as on 24-11-2008 had opted for fixation of pension in tune with the VIth Pay Commission, and hence, the appellant was well aware of the reasons for the delay caused in the disbursement of retirement benefits. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that there is no satisfactory explanation on the part of the appellan
