Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr. S Rajendran, Ifs (Retd.,) on 29 August, 2025
- 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REVIEW PETITION NO.364 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. RUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W.
SHRI. G.S. ARUNA, AGA)
AND:
Dr. S. RAJENDRAN, IFS (RETD.,)
S/O P. SANTHANAKRISHNAN
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT No.8, IAS OFFICERS' COLONY
5TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, BTM II
BENGALURU-560 076
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJENDRAN, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 AND SECTION 114 OF C.P.C. 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
No.5492/2024 (S-CAT), A COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A AND REHEAR THE MATTER.
- 2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This review petition is filed by the State seeking a review of the order dated 04.06.2024 in Writ Petition No.5492/2024 (S-CAT).
2. We have heard Shri. Ruben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri. G.S. Aruna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Dr. Rajendran/respondent/ party-in-person.
3. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review petitioner that the respondent had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal filing O.A.No.1257/2019 seeking interest on delayed payment of DCRG as well as other retirement benefits, including the commutation of pension. The OA had - 3 been allowed, finding that there was a delay in payment of the retirement benefits and interest was ordered at the prevailing GPF interest rate.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the interest on the DCRG as well as the other pensionary benefits which were outstanding, have already been dispersed. However, it is contended that the direction to pay interest on the commuted value of pension was completely unwarranted in view of the fact that the respondent was in receipt of his full pension till the commutation had been allowed and the delay would therefore not prejudice him in any manner. It is therefore contended that this Court ought not to have approved the direction with regard to payment of interest on the commuted value of pension. It is further contended that the Government Orders and Circulars, which are produced by the State Government specifically clarify that no interest is payable on commuted value of pension and that this aspect had not been considered by this Court in its order dated 04.06.2024.
- 4
5. We have considered the contentions advanced. We have also looked into the calculation statement made available by the learned Additional Advocate General before us. The specific contention is that there was no loss which had occurred to the pensioner on account of the delay in commutation being granted and that there is no interest which is provided with regard to commutation of pension. We notice that this very aspect of the matter had been highlighted before us in the writ petition filed by the State Government against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Annexure 'D' - Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2022 filed along with the writ petition was also specifically brought to our notice and was relied on. It is submitted that the said aspect of the matter had not been properly considered by us.
6. However, we notice from a reading of the order that the contents of Annexure 'D' order had been specifically noticed by the Bench and it is held in paragraph No.5 of the order under review, that Annexure 'D' only clarifies that in reply to a query that interest need not be paid on delayed - 5 payment of commuted value of pension and the pensioner would be in receipt of his full pension until commutation. We had specifically noticed that the order of the Tribunal under challenge was dated 02.09.2022 and that Annexure 'D' which was later in point of time, that is, dated 31.10.2022. Further we had specifically found that the challenge as against the order of the Tribunal dated 02.09.2022 had been made after nearly two years, without providing any explanation whatsoever for the delay in filing the writ petition. It was in those circumstances that this Court had found that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference.
7. Having considered the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General, in extenso, we do not find any reason to depart from our reasoning. No good grounds have been made out to justify a review of the order rendered in a writ petition, which was filed belatedly without any reason whatsoever for the delay. We also notice that no opinion had been expressed on the question of liability to pay interest on commuted value of pension. It is made clear that no opinion - 6 was expressed on the merits of the legal contentions raised by the review petitioner which will be left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
8. The review petition fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. The amounts due as interest shall be released to the respondent without further delay, at any rate within two months from today.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE cp*