Regulated Service Periods and Unpaid Arrears Must Be Computed for Final Retiral Benefit Adjustments

The petitioner, a retired Campus Supervisor (Class-IV) from Government Polytechnic, Gaya, filed a writ petition seeking payment of pension, retiral benefits, salary arrears for January and February 2023 (due to enhanced Dearness Allowance), and regularization of an absence period from 23.08.2002 to 23.04.2003.

During the pendency of the litigation, his pensionary benefits were redressed.

Furthermore, the Joint Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology issued Letter No. 4460 on 07.12.2023, regularizing the 244-day absence period.

However, the petitioner contended that the financial benefits arising from this regularization and the DA arrears had not yet been disbursed.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to financial benefits and salary arrears following the formal regularization of his service period from 23.08.2002 to 23.04.2003.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 12.5% interest on the delayed payments due to administrative laches.

The court applied the principle of administrative accountability regarding the timely disbursement of settled service benefits.

The court primarily relied on the executive order of regularization (Letter No. 4460 dated 07.12.2023) issued by the Department of Science and Technology.

The court referenced the precedent set in CWJC No. 13320 of 2023, which established that interest (12%) may be awarded on delayed payments where the state authority is found to be at fault or in laches.

The court noted that the primary hurdle for the petitioner's claim—the regularization of his 244-day absence—had been resolved by the State’s own department during the writ proceedings.

Since the competent authority had already regularized the period, the court reasoned that the consequential financial benefits and dearness allowance arrears are naturally due to the petitioner.

Regarding the claim for interest, the court held that while interest is not automatic, it must be considered if the petitioner can establish that the delay was caused by the negligence or laches of the respondent authorities, maintaining parity with similarly situated employees in previous judicial directions.

The authorities must pass an order and ensure payment within eight weeks of receipt of the court’s order.

Furthermore, the respondents are directed to evaluate if the delay was due to administrative laches; if so, they must consider granting interest in line with the directions in CWJC No. 13320 of 2023.