Jharkhand High Court: In the case where the Petitioner had filed the present petition seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of entire pensionary benefits including pension, gratuity, General Provident Fund, leave encashment etc., S.N. Pathak, J., observed that it failed to understand that when the petitioner’s dismissal order was quashed by the appellate authority, then under which authority of law, the entire admitted retirement benefits of an employee could be withheld.
The Court opined that it was the Constitutional and fundamental right of an employee to receive the retirement benefits, if there were no legal impediment. Nothing was brought on record to show that either a criminal case or a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. It was totally due to lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondents; the petitioner was subjected to hardship and suffered a monetary loss. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to pay all retirement benefits including pension with interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits including the consequential benefits, from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment.
Background
On 02-07-2020, the petitioner was dismissed from the service. However, on further challenge by the petitioner, the same was quashed and set aside the appellate authority on 06-01-2022. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired on 31-01-2023. When the admitted retirement benefits including the consequential benefits, such as full salary during the suspension period, and the full salary from the date of passing of the dismissal order till the date of retirement were not extended, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The Court passed several orders which directed the respondents to explain why the petitioner was not entitled for the retirement benefits after quashing of the dismissal order by the appellate authority. However, the respondents contended that, yet no decision had been taken for granting the benefits, therefore the retirement benefits could not be extended.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that it failed to understand that under which authority of law, the entire admitted retirement benefits of an employee could be withheld when the dismissal order was quashed by the appellate authority, that too when no appeal/revision was preferred by the Department. The Court stated that the respondent took filmsy stand which was not acceptable and this was another glaring example of delay and laches on the respondents’ part for not extending the retirement benefits.
The Court noted that almost a year had passed since the petitioner’s retirement and yet even the admitted dues had not been paid. The poor employee was being harassed at the hands of the respondents. The Court noted that in numerous judgments it was held that the pensionary benefits were not the bounty to the distributed at the sweet-will of the Authorities. It was the Constitutional and fundamental right of an employee to receive the retirement benefits, if there were no legal impediment. The Court further stated that nothing was brought on record to show that either a criminal case or a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. It was totally due to lethargic and lackadaisical approach of the respondents, the petitioner was subjected to hardship and suffered a monetary loss, thus it made respondents liable to pay interest on the due amount at an appropriate rate to compensate the petitioner.
The Court relied on State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, ; D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., ; State of A.P. v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari, , and directed the respondents to pay all retirement benefits including pension with interest at the rate of 6% per annum simple interest on the delayed payment of retirement benefits including the consequential benefits, from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. The Court further clarified that if the amount was not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same should carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amount due to the petitioner till date of actual payment.
[Shrawan Kumar Das v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No. 4269 of 2023, Order dated 22-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Manoj Tandon, Advocate; Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Awanish Shankar, AC to AAG-I.
The post appeared first on .