Shakuntala Jain vs State of Haryana

V.K. Bali, J.—The relief asked for in the present petition is for interest on delayed payments only.

The husband of the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer, died in October 1983 while in service. The petitioner, who happens to be

his widow, was given family pension vide pension payment order No. 7210/P/Haryana. The 4th pay Commission which came into existence in

1989 was to be implemented in view of the letter dated 28.12.1989. Pursuant to the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission, the family pension

payable to the petitioner was required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and arrears of pension were also required to be paid to her. The respondents

failed to perform their duty of re-fixation of her family pension and for payment of the same to the petitioner. The pe-titioner submitted a

representation dated 5.4.1997. It is the case of the petitioner that she is not educated and had to struggle to raise a family of three daughters and

three sons, the eldest son being totally handicapped. The representation was favourably, considered by the respondents and in June 1992 vide

(annexure P2), Accountant General, Haryana, re-fixed the family pension of the petitioner, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 49,199/- as

principal amount was paid to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner in the present writ, as mentioned above, is only with regard to payment of

interest.

The facts as detailed above have not at all been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been pleaded that

inasmuch as the petitioner did not approach the respondent department for number of years for the grant of revision in pension, the petitioner is not

entitled to any interest.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G. Haryana, this Court is of the view that the only defence projected in the

written statement that she did not ask for her right, cannot possibly sustain. It is the duty of the employer and, particularly if the employer happens

to be a State, to promptly pay the proper dues to the employees, be it a ease of pension of retired employee or his widow/family members. The

State cannot shun its responsibility on the plea that no request for payment as such was made. If what is pleaded in the written statement is

accepted, then the State in every case will ignore to pay dues promptly to its employees and get away with the liability to pay any interest on

delayed payments.

In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the State to pay to the petitioner interest to be calculated

at the rate of 10% p.a. on the delayed payment of arrears of family pension.

As mentioned above, so far as the payments of arrears with regard to the family pension are concerned, the same have already been made.

Interest will naturally accrue on the principal amount from the date the revised pension become due.

Let this exercise be done within four weeks from the date copy of this order is received. No order as to costs.

Petition allowed.