A subsequent claim for pension interest may be barred when omitted from an earlier writ petition.

The petitioner’s husband was terminated from service in 2001; the Labour Court later modified the punishment to “discharge” by award dated 17 January 2005. He died on 11 October 2005.

After earlier writ proceedings resulted in directions to implement the award and provide family pension and other monetary benefits, the petitioner received ₹11,45,532 on 2 March 2022.

She then sought interest at 12% per annum from her husband’s death.

In the earlier writ petition seeking compassionate appointment or family pension, she had not claimed interest.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the belatedly paid family pension, from the date of her husband’s death

2. Whether the petitioner’s failure to claim interest in the earlier writ petition precluded her from seeking it in this proceeding, having regard to Order II Rule 2 CPC

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court stated that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to writ proceedings “as far as possible” and relied on the principle in Order II Rule 2 that a claimant should seek available reliefs arising from the same cause of action in the earlier proceeding.

The petitioner relied on S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, in support of her claim for interest; the Court held that reliance on that decision did not establish entitlement to interest in the circumstances of this case.

The Court did not decide whether a discharged employee was legally entitled to pension under Rule 21; it noted that this question had been left open.

The Court accepted that payment of the pension had been delayed by approximately 17 years but considered the circumstances surrounding the entitlement and the petitioner’s earlier litigation.

The underlying question whether her husband’s discharge entitled him to pension remained unresolved, and the Supreme Court had left that question open.

Further, the petitioner’s earlier writ petition sought compassionate appointment or family pension but did not include a claim for interest.

Applying Order II Rule 2 to the writ proceedings, the Court considered that interest should have been claimed then; it therefore found the later claim, including reliance on S.K. Dua, misconceived in the circumstances.

No costs were awarded.