Retired Haryana Joint Secretary Gets No Interest on Delayed Pension; P&H HC Finds No Government Delay Amid Service-Book Anomalies

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of his pensionary benefits under the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

The court held

The Court held that no ground was made out for awarding interest on the delayed pensionary benefits and dismissed the writ petition.

It also directed

The pending application(s), if any, were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, a Haryana Civil Secretariat employee who retired as Joint Secretary on 31 July 2019, claimed that his pensionary benefits were paid in instalments between December 2020 and March 2021, after substantial delay.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–3

He sought interest at 18% per annum, contending that the delay resulted from administrative handling of his pension case, including withholding part of his gratuity over an ACP arrears issue.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–3

The State rejected his representations, relying on Rule 79(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–3

The petitioner challenged those decisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 1–5 · ¶ 1–3

The respondents maintained that the case required reconciliation of service-book and pay details, including the petitioner’s promotion shortly before retirement, and that there had been no administrative delay.

pp. 7–8, 10–12 · ¶ 9–10, 12–16

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on delayed payment of his pensionary benefits under the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 4–7

ii.Whether the respondents’ orders rejecting his claim for interest should be quashed.

pp. 1, 4–5 · ¶ 1, 4–5

03Law Applied

The dispute concerned the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 4–5

As described in the petitioner’s submissions, Rule 79(1) provides for interest where pensionary benefits are authorised beyond the prescribed period and the delay is attributable to an administrative lapse, but not where the delay is attributable to the retiree; Rule 79(5)(a) concerns interest on arrears arising from retrospective revision of pensionary benefits following a subsequent Government decision.

pp. 4–6 · ¶ 4–5

Respondent No. 2 also relied on Rule 72(A)(4) in relation to the pension case and withholding of gratuity.

pp. 7, 10–12 · ¶ 10, 15

No judicial precedents were cited or applied in the judgment.

04Reasoning

The Court found, on the respondents’ unrebutted account, that the pension case had been processed through successive calculations and revisions, including consideration of the petitioner’s revised pay following his promotion one day before retirement and the issue of the withheld ACP-related amount.

pp. 8–12 · ¶ 12–16

It accepted that these matters explained the processing of the case and found that the respondents had neither delayed the matter nor remained inactive on the file.

pp. 8–12 · ¶ 12–16

As the petitioner filed no replication controverting the respondents’ account, the Court found no basis to attribute the delay to an administrative lapse warranting interest.

p. 12 · ¶ 16–17