Widow’s family pension delayed for over 23 years; Uttarakhand High Court orders 8% interest on arrears

The petitioner’s husband, a regular Group ‘D’ employee in the Revenue Department, died in harness on 28 July 2002.

The petitioner, his widow, applied for family pension and other benefits, but the pension was not sanctioned despite repeated representations.

During the pendency of her Article 226 writ petition, the pension was sanctioned on 11 April 2025, more than 23 years after her husband’s death.

She sought interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payment.

The State submitted that Section 8 of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018, contained no specific provision for interest on delayed family pension.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on family pension delayed for more than 23 years, where the delay was attributable to the respondent Department.

If so, what rate of interest and period of payment were appropriate.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may grant relief where an eligible family member’s accrued pension entitlement has been withheld through administrative delay.

Pensionary benefits are legitimate entitlements, not discretionary benefits, and the State, as a model employer, must process them within a reasonable time; unexplained delay attributable to the employer may justify interest even if the applicable rules do not specifically provide for it.

The petitioner relied on D.D. Tewari (Dead) through LRs v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, for the principle that pension and gratuity are valuable property rights and that undue delay in disbursement may warrant interest.

The State’s reliance on Section 8 of the Uttarakhand Retirement Benefits Act, 2018, was noted, but the Court held that the absence of a specific interest provision did not itself justify prolonged withholding.

The petitioner’s entitlement to family pension and the date of her husband’s death were undisputed, as was the eventual sanction of pension on 11 April 2025.

The respondents produced no material showing that the petitioner caused the delay or that a lawful impediment prevented timely sanction.

Given the delay of more than 23 years and its attribution to the Department, the Court found that reasonable interest was warranted notwithstanding the absence of an express provision for interest in the applicable rules.

It considered 8% per annum, rather than the 12% sought, sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

It directed the respondents to calculate and pay interest at 8% per annum on the family pension payable from 28 July 2002 until actual payment, within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.