Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geeta Deshpande vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 12 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.203988 OF 2018 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETA DESHPANDE
W/O LATE PRAVEEN DESHPANDE,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
C/O HANAMANTHRAO KULKARNI,
NO.8-11-180/253, VIDYA NAGAR,
RAICHUR,
NOW WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
AT OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
CADA IRRIGATION PROJECTS DIVISION
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S S HALALLI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE CHAIRMAN & ADMINISTRATOR
COMMOND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
2
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BHEEMARAYAN GUDI - 585287
TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1
SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE
LIKE NATURE, DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.03.2018 ANNEXURE-F AND TO PAY THE INTEREST ON
DELAYED PAYMENT OF FAMILY PENSION FROM THE DCRG
FROM 30.08.1991.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 authority to consider the representation dated 13.03.2018 vide Annexure-F and to pay interest on delayed payment of family pension and DCRG from 30.08.1991.
3
2. The brief facts giving rise to file this writ petition are as follows:
The husband of the petitioner Sri Praveen B. Deshpande was appointed as SDC under respondent No.2 Department on 03.03.1983 and his service was confirmed by order dated 04.02.1986. The husband of the petitioner served for 8 years and died on 29.08.1991 during the course of his employment leaving behind the petitioner as his legal heir. The petitioner requested the respondent No.2 for grant of family pension and benefits. Respondent No.2 did not consider the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not considering the representation has filed writ petition No.19774/2007 seeking for mandamus to consider the representation dated 19.07.2007 for grant of pensionary benefits. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2008 disposed of the 4 writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 by an endorsement dated 12.03.2009 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that as per the Government Order dated 17.02.2003, and Notification dated 19.07.2003, the petitioner is not eligible for the pensionary benefits. The petitioner being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.87351/2012. This Court vide order dated 02.02.2015 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits.
Respondent No.2 by an order dated 13.08.2015 ordered family pension and earned leave benefits. Thereafter by correction/corrigendum order dated 28.09.2015 granted family pension and earned leave holding the petitioner is eligible for the pensionary benefit under Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Service (Family 5 Pension) Rules 1964. In pursuance to the orders of this Court and contempt petition, the respondent No.2 has extended family pension and DCRG and released the arrears after lapse of more than 25 years. In view of delay in settling the pensionary benefits, the petitioner has requested for payment of interest on the delayed payment as per Government Rules. Respondent No.2 has not passed any order on the representation dated 13.03.2018 to pay interest on the delayed payment of family pension and DGRG from 30.08.1991. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. The respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections. It is admitted that husband of the petitioner was working as SDC in respondent No.2 Department and he died while in service on 29.08.1991. It was contended that at the time of death of husband of the petitioner, there was no 6 provision for pensionary benefits to the employees in the respondent No.2 Department. Subsequently, an order was passed by the Government of Karnataka on 17.02.2003 granting pensionary benefits to the employees of CADA Department similar to the pension benefits granted under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. It is also admitted that while filing the writ petition by the petitioner that respondent No.2 released the pensionary benefits as per the order of Government of Karnataka and further contended that there is no provision for payment of interest on pension amount for the delayed period and the respondents have no authority to pay any interest for the delayed period. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is duty bound to settle the pension benefits. In the present case, respondent No.2 took 25 long years to settle the pension benefits. Thus, delay has been caused in settling the pension. Hence, he submitted a representation to respondent No.2 to pay interest for the delayed payment. Hence prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The husband of the petitioner was appointed as SDC under respondent No.2 Department on 03.03.1983. The husband of the petitioner died on 29.08.1991. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted an application for grant of family pension and other benefits. Respondent No.2 did not consider the 8 representation submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.19744/2007 seeking for mandamus to consider the representation dated 19.07.2007. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2008 allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, respondent No.2 issued an endorsement on 12.03.2009 rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that as per the Government Order dated 17.02.2003 and Notification dated 19.07.2003, the husband of the petitioner is not eligible for pension. The petitioner aggrieved by the said endorsement issued by respondent No.2, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.87351/2012. This Court vide order dated 02.02.2015, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pensionary benefits. 9 The respondent No.2 by order dated 13.08.2015, ordered the family pension and earned leave benefits holding that the petitioner is eligible for pensionary benefit under Rule 5 of Karnataka Civil Services (Family Pension) Rules, 1964. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has paid the amount to the petitioner through cheque dated 18.07.2017. After receiving the amount, the petitioner has submitted an application/ representation for payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension, as per Government Rules. Respondent No.2 did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. There was delay in settling the pension for almost 25 years. Rule 321 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules provides for applications and sanction of pensions. Rule 322 which reads as follows, provides for expeditious settlement of pensions:
10
"322. All authorities dealing with applications for pensions under these Rules should bear in mind that delay in the payment of pensions involves particular hardship. It is essential to ensure, therefore, that a Government servant begins to receive his pension on the date on which it becomes due."
8. Further, the Government has taken care by issuing several Circulars and Government orders for expeditious settlement of pension and pensionary benefits of retired government servants.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DR. UMA AGARWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. [(1999) 3 SCC 438], has observed that delay in settlement of retirement benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Relevant paragraph reads as follows:
"5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment 11 of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time- schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case."12
10. Yet in another decision in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2001) 9 SCC 687], at paragraph-3, it is held as under:
"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement."
11. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and also in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.24368/2002 disposed of on 06.09.2006, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has failed to perform his legal duty. Hence a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner at Annexure-F, regarding payment of interest for the 13 delayed payment, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DR.
UMA AGARWAL (SUPRA) and this Court in W.P.No.24368/2002, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE VNR/RD