MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein was allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner/appellant for grant of pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules and finalise the same within three months. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that although the pensionary benefits have been allowed to the appellant, no interest has been paid on the amount which had accrued towards pensionary benefits.

(2.) Having heard the counsel for the appellant as also on perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondents as to whether he was at all entitled to receive the pensionary benefits in view of the fact that he had resigned from the service as per the respondents' version but the appellant's assertion was that it was not a case of resignation but it was a case of voluntary retirement due to which he was entitled to the pensionary benefits. Thus, it is obvious that a controversy arose between the contesting parties as to whether the appellant could be allowed pensionary benefits and when the denial of the pensionary benefits was challenged before the learned Single Judge, it was finally held that the appellant may be allowed pensionary benefits if the rules so permit. The reason for recording tins controversy, is on the premise that if the employee has not been paid the pensionary benefits without any just cause by the respondents and thereafter he has been held entitled to the pension, the same, in our view, would not entail the consequence of demand of interest by the employee as the interest can be paid on the amount only if for no rhyme or reason, the employer denies the pensionary benefits. However, if the service rules permit interest to the employee on the pensionary benefits for any reason whatsoever, the claim of interest of the employee on the pensionary benefits can be entertained. In the instant matter, the learned Single Judge has not granted pensionary benefits to the appellant but directed the respondents to consider his case for awarding pensionary benefits in accordance with the rules in this regard. Thereafter, if the pensionary benefits have been awarded to the appellant and no interest has been paid to him, it can be presumed that the rules do not permit the award of interest. Thereafter if the employee thinks it legally appropriate to claim interest on the basis of any sustainable legal plea before a court of law then, in our view, the same (interest) can be awarded on the pensionary amount only if the pension had been withheld by the employer without any reason or explanation. Having gone through the factual aspects of the matter, we feel that the respondents had a reason to deny the pensionary benefits to the appellant as a controversy was existing as to whether he was at all entitled to the pension in view of the fact that he had resigned from the job. Thereafter, by virtue of the order of the court, if he has been granted the pensionary benefits, the claim for interest also could have been made by the appellant before the same court. But the learned Single Judge, in fact, had not allowed the pensionary benefits straightway, as already stated hereinbefore, and had merely directed that the same may be considered in accordance with the rules in this regard. Thus, we find no case in favour of the appellant for grant of interest on the pensionary benefits and hence this appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.