ONKAR CHAND BANDLA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant herein has claimed that the respondents may be directed to pay him interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payments of arrears of pension and other retiral benefits w.e.f. 1.5.1989 to 21.7.1995.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the case of the applicant, is that he joined the Education Department on 6.8.1955 as J.B.T. Teacher and superannuated as Head Teacher on 30.4.1989. He made representations to the concerned Department for counting the service rendered by him in the District Board for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits and when the representations did not yielded any result, he filed O.A. (D) -215/96 in July, 1996. This original application was disposed of by this Tribunal vide Annexure P -1. At a later stage, the Government of Himachal Pradesh took decision to count the entire service rendered by an employee of Education Department in the erstwhile District Board of Schools for pensionary and other retirement benefits irrespective of the fact whether the employees of the Board were contributing to C.P.F. or not vide Annexure P -2, dated 15.3.1997. As a sequel to the decision of the Government, the applicant filed a Revision Petition No. (D)(2/94 in the aforesaid original application to allow him the revised pension and other pensionary benefits from the date of retirement alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of the retrial benefits. The said Review Petition was allowed vide order Annexure P -3 dated 27.3.1997, directing the respondents to pay the applicant the revised pension and other pensionary benefits by counting the service rendered by him in the employment of District Board in terms of the uniform Policy adopted by the Government vide letter Annexure P -2 dated March 15, 1997. According to the applicant, as per the implied and underlying intention of these directions, the respondent -Department is bound and required to pay the revised pension and other pensionary benefits to the applicant w.e.f. 30.4.1989 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum, so as to meet the ends of justice. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the applicant got arreas of difference of the revised pension etc., but not the interest. He made a representation for payment of the interest but without any result. Hence, this original application claiming the interest.

(3.) A few judgments have been cited for the applicant in support of the proposition that when there is delay in the payment of retrial benefits interest has to be paid. There is no need to set out such judgments here in detail for the simple reason that it is a settled position that in case the payment of retrial benefits is delay to a retired employee, he will be entitled for interest on the delayed payments. In the case in hand, however, the aforesaid proposition of law is not applicable at all.