Interest on delayed retirement benefits is unwarranted absent deliberate departmental delay.

The petitioner, a Forest Department employee whose superannuation date was 30 April 2014, sought interest on delayed pensionary and retirement benefits and payment of an alleged GPF balance of Rs.82,114.

Criminal proceedings were pending on his superannuation; he was convicted, but acquitted by the High Court on 19 January 2018.

The State’s appeals against the acquittal were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19 July 2022.

The respondents issued the petitioner’s relieving order on 4 January 2021 and submitted bills for various benefits to the Treasury thereafter.

The petitioner also asserted that Rs.2,00,000 remained payable as DCRG.

The Court noted that his own account showed no outstanding GPF amount and that the balance claimed related to DCRG.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of pensionary and retirement benefits.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for payment of the claimed outstanding amount, including the alleged GPF balance.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court considered whether mandamus was warranted for payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits.

Relying on S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, it stated that an employee may be entitled to interest on delayed retirement benefits even without an agreement providing for interest where the Department’s delay is deliberate and affects the employee’s right to life.

The Court also treated the absence of any amount outstanding in the GPF account, and the fact that the alleged balance related instead to DCRG not specifically sought in the prayer, as relevant to the requested relief.

The Court accepted that the terminal benefits had been delayed but found no deliberate delay warranting interest.

It attributed the delay up to 2018 to the pending criminal proceedings and, thereafter, noted the State’s challenge to the acquittal and the respondents’ steps to process the benefits following the relieving order of 4 January 2021.

Applying S.K. Dua, the Court held that the absence of deliberate departmental delay defeated the claim for interest.

As to the monetary claim, the petitioner’s own figures showed that no amount remained due towards GPF; the stated Rs.2,00,000 balance related to DCRG, while the petition’s prayer sought payment of a GPF balance.

Finding no merit in the petition, it dismissed the writ petition without costs.