M L WADHWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a retired Chief Engineer of the Irrigation Department of Government of Rajasthan, has claimed interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of his retirement on 31.3.1999 till the date of actual payment of retiral benefits for the delay occurred in the payment of such retiral benefits to him. The petitioner has further claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony against the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in certain disciplinary enquiries and also a criminal case under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; however, despite exoneration from the charges in the departmental proceedings and acquittal by the competent court in the aforesaid corruption case against him, the respondent State delayed the payment of retiral dues to him until 2003 when the final Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued to him on 11.2.2003. Therefore, for the period of about four years, from the date of retirement on 31.3.1999 till the payment of retiral dues on 11.2.2003, the petitioner, deserves to be paid interest thereon @ 24% p.a. However, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that the rate of interest can be reduced as per prevailing rate of interest at 9% p.a.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that against the order of acquittal in the Criminal Case No. 12/1998 (State vs. Mohan Lal) under Section 7, 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 5.7.2001, the State filed a criminal leave to appeal before High Court being S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 304/2001 (State of Rajasthan vs. Mohan Lal), which came to be rejected by this Court on 28.2.2002. Thereafter, the State took the matter further to the Apex Court by way of filing SLP (Criminal Appeal No. 85/2003 (State vs. Mohan Lal), which also came to be dismissed by the Apex Court on 16.4.2009; and thus the petitioner having been acquitted from the alleged charges of corruption against him, there remains no reason with the respondent-State to delay the payment of retiral dues to the petitioner which fell due on the date of retirement on 31.3.1999, and the petitioner is entitled to interest on the aforesaid delayed payment of retiral dues. He, therefore, prayed for allowing of the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, 1996 as substituted on 12.6.2001 vide Note No. (ii) under sub-rule (6) did not permit the date of retiral dues to be taken as the date of retirement, in case of Government servant against whom disciplinary/judicial proceedings are pending on the date of retirement, and such due date could be taken only oh the date of issue of the orders by the competent authority releasing such retiral dues to the official concerned. He also submitted that said Rule 89(6) as amended with effect from 9.9.2008, and which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner in the present case by way of filing additional affidavit, does not apply to the present case as the petitioner retired way back on 31.3.1999 and immediately after dismissal of the leave to appeal of the State by the High Court on 28.2.2002, the petitioner was paid the retiral benefits on 11.2.2003, therefore, no interest on such alleged delay in payment of retiral dues was payable to the petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court towards para 6 of the reply filed by the State, learned counsel for the non-petitioner also submitted that the petitioner also produced No Objection Certificate with respect to his loan for vehicle only on 1.8.2002 and, therefore, the final pension payment order and amended pension payment order was issued to him on 11.2.2003. Hence, the delay occurred in payment of retiral dues was not attributable to the respondent-State and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the delayed payment of pension and retiral benefits. He also submitted that provisional pension was, of course, issued in favour of petitioner on 1.10.1999 with effect from 1.4.1999 itself.