Exonerated Government Servants Are Entitled to Interest on Pensionary Benefits Withheld During Inquiry.

The respondent retired from service in 2013 while two departmental enquiries were pending.

One enquiry ended in his exoneration in 2018, and the other concluded in his favour in 2022.

His pensionary benefits were sanctioned by order dated 12 February 2019.

The respondent challenged an endorsement dated 12 August 2024 refusing interest for delayed payment of those benefits; the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal quashed the endorsement, prompting the State’s writ petition.

The State argued that benefits were settled promptly after the enquiry outcome and that the respondent’s failure to submit an application precluded interest.

Whether the respondent was entitled to interest on pensionary benefits paid after his exoneration in the departmental enquiries

Whether the respondent’s alleged failure to submit an application for pensionary benefits defeated his claim to interest

Government Orders No. FD (Special) 199 PEN 93 dated 13 September 1994 and No. FD (Special) 92 PEN 95 dated 17 June 1995 empower the State to sanction interest for delayed settlement of pension and pensionary benefits; the Court read them as supporting interest where benefits were withheld during departmental proceedings and the employee was exonerated.

Under Rule 321(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), the Head of Office must obtain the prescribed particulars from a retiring non-gazetted employee one year before retirement.

Rules 258 and 327(1) concern the sanction of superannuation pension and advance pension applications by gazetted officers, respectively.

Relying on a coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 13509 of 2026, the Court stated that the relevant authorities must obtain and process pension particulars or applications where necessary; non-submission by the employee does not, by itself, relieve them of that responsibility.

The respondent was exonerated in both departmental enquiries, and his benefits were paid only after a substantial delay following his 2013 retirement.

The Court held that the cited Government Orders supported his entitlement to interest on benefits withheld because of the pending enquiries.

It rejected the State’s application-based defence: Rule 321(1) placed an obligation on the Head of Office to obtain the retiring non-gazetted employee’s particulars, and the coordinate Bench decision supported the broader principle that pension authorities must take steps to process pension benefits even when an application has not been submitted.

The writ petition was rejected.