No interest is payable where pensionary benefits were withheld pending justified police investigation without departmental delay.

The petitioner’s wife, Smt. Meenakshi, a Senior Scale Stenographer in the Urban Estates Department, died by suicide on 12 July 2017.

The petitioner applied for family pension and other death-related benefits on 27 July 2017 and submitted the requisite documents on 10 August 2017.

The Department withheld payment pending the police investigation and forensic report concerning the cause of death.

The police ultimately reported that no person was responsible for the suicide and that no FIR had been registered; this report was communicated to the Department through an affidavit filed before the High Court in February 2021.

Following earlier writ and contempt proceedings, the Department released the benefits in instalments between 23 December 2021 and 9 March 2023, but did not pay interest for the period of delay.

The petitioner’s claim for interest was rejected by the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, on 26 April 2024, principally with reference to Rule 52(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

Whether the respondents unlawfully delayed the release of the petitioner’s family pension and other death benefits, thereby making him entitled to interest?

Whether Rule 52(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 permitted the respondents to withhold the benefits pending police investigation, even though the petitioner was never formally charged with murder or abetment?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest under the principles laid down in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab for delayed payment of retiral or pensionary benefits?

Rule 52(1) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 provides that where a family member eligible for family pension is charged with murdering the deceased Government employee or pensioner, or with abetting such offence, the claim to family pension remains suspended until conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

The Court considered A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab, under which interest may be awarded for unjustified delay in payment of retiral benefits and responsibility may be fixed upon erring officials.

It also relied upon the principles stated in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, namely that interest is compensatory for wrongful deprivation or loss of use of money; its award is discretionary, equitable and fact-dependent, and must not be punitive or mechanically imposed.

The Court held that the Department did not cause the delay.

Since the death was by suicide, it was necessary to determine whether the petitioner or any other family member had abetted the suicide or was otherwise criminally involved.

The Department repeatedly sought police reports from October 2017 onwards, while the police investigation and forensic process remained pending.

The final police report, concluding that no one was responsible and that no FIR had been registered, became available only in October 2020 and was brought to the Department’s notice through the High Court proceedings in February 2021.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Rule 52(1) applied only after a formal charge had been framed.

It reasoned that the question whether any family member should be charged could be determined only after completion of the investigation.

The respondents had therefore been justified in withholding payment as a precautionary measure during the investigation.

After receiving police clearance and the petitioner’s remaining documents, the Department processed and released the benefits without undue delay.

Since there was no wrongful or deliberate delay attributable to the respondents, the compensatory basis for awarding interest was absent.

It held that the withholding of benefits during the pending police investigation was justified, that no actionable delay was attributable to the Department, and that the petitioner had no entitlement to interest under A.S. Randhawa or otherwise.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 26 April 2024 was dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.