Authorities must decide interest claims for delayed retiral dues in accordance with governing Supreme Court precedent.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, retired on 31 January 2019.

His retiral dues were allegedly disbursed only after he instituted earlier writ proceedings.

In W.A. No. 419 of 2019, decided on 2 May 2023, the High Court granted him liberty to submit a representation claiming interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues and directed the competent authority to consider it in light of Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College & Ors., (2022) 4 SCC 627.

The petitioner’s representation was rejected by letter dated 29 January 2024, Annexure P-1.

He challenged that rejection, contending that the authority had not considered the governing Supreme Court precedent or identified the person responsible for the delay.

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s representation claiming interest on delayed retiral dues was legally sustainable when the authority had not considered the principles laid down in Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College & Ors.

Whether the competent authority was required to determine responsibility for the delay in disbursement of the petitioner’s retiral dues before deciding his claim for interest.

The Court applied the direction issued in the earlier writ appeal requiring the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s claim for interest in accordance with the law laid down in Dr. A. Selvaraj v. C.B.M. College & Ors., (2022) 4 SCC 627.

The applicable principle was that a claim for interest on delayed retiral or terminal benefits must be objectively considered in accordance with the governing law, including examination of the circumstances and responsibility for the delay.

An administrative authority acting pursuant to a judicial direction must meaningfully apply the precedent and provide a reasoned determination rather than merely reject the representation.

The Court found that the Executive Engineer had rejected the petitioner’s representation without considering the principles laid down in Dr. A. Selvaraj and without identifying who was responsible for the delayed payment.

This omission was material because the petitioner had retired on 31 January 2019, whereas his retiral dues were paid only after the earlier litigation.

The authority had therefore failed to comply with the specific direction issued in W.A. No. 419 of 2019 and had not undertaken the required legal and factual examination of the claim.

The respondents’ counsel also conceded that the representation had not been decided in accordance with the Supreme Court precedent.

If the petitioner is found entitled to interest, the authority must pass the necessary order granting interest on the delayed retiral dues within a further period of 50 days from the date of the order.

The impugned rejection was thus treated as insufficient for failure to apply the applicable precedent and determine responsibility for the delay.