# Rajani v. The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Head Quarter and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 368
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19348 of 2003
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajani-v-the-chief-of-the-army-staff-army-head-quarter-and-others-40738
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 21-InterestPension gratuity with hold for 10 yearscause of delay in payment of pensiondisclosed the financial constraint heldclearly
and
springy
infringes
the
fundamental of right under Art. 21 of the
Constitution-instead
of
remand
the
matter for calculation of interest-at the
rate of 10% about Rs.35000/- as well as
the cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid within
two months.

Held: Para 8

Consequently, in the opinion of the
Court, since the post retirement benefits
has been paid after a period of 10 years
and
the
delay
was
without
any
justification,
consequently,
the
respondents are liable to pay penal
interest.
Since
the
post
retirement
benefits is the lifeline for a person after
his retirement, the non-disbursement of
the post retirement benefits clearly and
squarely infringes the fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India to a citizen to live a life of
retirement with dignity. The petitioner
was made to run from pillar to post by
the
respondents
without
any
justification.
Consequently,
the
petitioner is not only entitled for interest
but also cost of this litigation.

In my opinion, remitting the matter back
to the
authorities to calculate the
interest would serve no useful purpose
as it would further delay and harass the
petitioner who has now reached the age
of 75 years. If the amount had been
released by the respondents immediately
after the retirement of the petitioner, the
petitioner would have earned some
interest if the same was invested. Even if
this Court awards interest @ 10% per
annum, the minimum amount towards
interest would come to approximately
Rs.35,000/-.
The
petitioner
is
also
entitled for cost of litigation and for the
mental harassment that he underwent.
Consequently, considering the entire
matter, this Court quantifies the interest
as well as cost at Rs.50,000/-. This
amount shall be paid without any further
delay within two months from the date a
certified
copy
of
this
judgment
is
produced
before
the
authority
concerned.
Case law discussed:
1994 (6) SCC-589
2003 (3) SCC-40
1985 (1) SCC-429
2005 (1) SCC-750
2005 (3) AWC-2989

## Text

368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
provide for possessing any such technical
qualification. The qualification announced
as essential for the post of stenographers
was matriculate with short hand speed of
100 per minute (English) and typing
speed of 40 word per minute (English). In
the supplementary counter affidavit of Lt.
Col. M.S. Raju, Quarter Master for
Commandant, Rajput Regimental Central,
Fatehgarh, it is clearly stated in paragraph
5 that the requisite qualifications were not
amended and no corrigendum was issued.
The requirement of valid certificate from
technical education board/universities was
insisted only in the call letter issued for
written
test
and
interview
dated
26.2.2002. The petitioner was required to
submit
the
original
certificates
by
29.6.2002.
She
was
thus
illegally
disqualified.

8. The requirement of valid
certificate
from
technical
education
Board/University was neither prescribed
in the rules nor in the advertisement. The
authority issuing call letters for written
test and interview was not competent
authority to lay down the essential
qualification for the post. The petitioner
was fully qualified and had attained the
required speed in short hand and typing.
She had secured second position in the
merit list. The fact that she possessed only
first year mark sheet in diploma in Office
Management and Secretarial Practice
from
Government
Girls Polytechnic,
Gorakhpur was not of any consequence as
this was neither essential qualification nor
preferential qualification for appointment
to the post. When a candidate holds the
minimum qualification provided in the
rules and in the advertisement the fact that
she could not produce the certificate of
the additional qualification by the last
date
provided
by
the
appointment
authority could not be a ground to deny
appointment to her. The affidavit of the
petitioner accompanying the application
dated 13.11.2002, discloses that she has
completed two years Diploma Course and
her result was available on the Internet
before 29.6.2002 and she expected to be
issued the certificate in the first week of
August, 2002. She in fact received the
certificate of the two years course on
1.8.2002 and the mark sheet on 13.8.2002
which has been brought on record. The
respondents, however, did not accept the
certificate as the post was sanctioned to
be filled up only upto 30.6.2002. In my
opinion
the
petitioner
was
treated
arbitrarily in rejecting her candidate and
refusing her request to produce the
certificate, the result of which was
available on the Internet. Even otherwise
this certificate of the course pursued by
her as additional qualification was not
essential for appointment. She had passed
the test and was declared selected. She,
therefore,
could
not
be
refused
appointment.

9. The writ petition is allowed. The
order of appointment of Sri Jitendra
Kumar, respondent no. 4 placed at third in
the merit list is set aside. The petitioner
shall be given appointment without any
delay with seniority with effect from the
date she was entitled to be appointed if
her candidature was not struck out.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19348 of 2003

Ram Narain Tripathi

...Petitioner
1 All] Rajani V. The Chief of the Army Staff, Army Head Quarter and others
369
Versus
State
of
U.P.
through
its
Finance
Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Shukla
Sri R.K. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.N. Saksena
Sri Sarvesh Singh
Sri Suresh Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 21-InterestPension gratuity with hold for 10 yearscause of delay in payment of pensiondisclosed the financial constraint heldclearly
and
springy
infringes
the
fundamental of right under Art. 21 of the
Constitution-instead
of
remand
the
matter for calculation of interest-at the
rate of 10% about Rs.35000/- as well as
the cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid within
two months.

Held: Para 8

Consequently, in the opinion of the
Court, since the post retirement benefits
has been paid after a period of 10 years
and
the
delay
was
without
any
justification,
consequently,
the
respondents are liable to pay penal
interest.
Since
the
post
retirement
benefits is the lifeline for a person after
his retirement, the non-disbursement of
the post retirement benefits clearly and
squarely infringes the fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India to a citizen to live a life of
retirement with dignity. The petitioner
was made to run from pillar to post by
the
respondents
without
any
justification.
Consequently,
the
petitioner is not only entitled for interest
but also cost of this litigation.

In my opinion, remitting the matter back
to the
authorities to calculate the
interest would serve no useful purpose
as it would further delay and harass the
petitioner who has now reached the age
of 75 years. If the amount had been
released by the respondents immediately
after the retirement of the petitioner, the
petitioner would have earned some
interest if the same was invested. Even if
this Court awards interest @ 10% per
annum, the minimum amount towards
interest would come to approximately
Rs.35,000/-.
The
petitioner
is
also
entitled for cost of litigation and for the
mental harassment that he underwent.
Consequently, considering the entire
matter, this Court quantifies the interest
as well as cost at Rs.50,000/-. This
amount shall be paid without any further
delay within two months from the date a
certified
copy
of
this
judgment
is
produced
before
the
authority
concerned.
Case law discussed:
1994 (6) SCC-589
2003 (3) SCC-40
1985 (1) SCC-429
2005 (1) SCC-750
2005 (3) AWC-2989

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K.Shukla, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh
Singh, the learned counsel appearing for
the Zila Panchayat, Jhansi and the learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
other
respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the
present petition praying for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the
retirement benefits which had not been
paid to him for almost 12 years. It
transpires, that the petitioner retired on
31.1.1991 from the post of an Executive
Officer in Zila Parishad, Jhansi. Upon his
retirement after 40 years of service, he
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
was entitled for the post retirement
benefits, namely, pension, gratuity, etc.
These legitimate dues and benefits were,
however, not paid nor released by the
respondents for reasons best known to
them. The petitioner approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No.7449 of
1996 which was disposed of with a
direction to the authority to decide the
representation and the claim of the
petitioner. The authority, while deciding
the claim of the petitioner, admitted that
he was liable to be paid the pension and
other retirement benefits but pleaded their
helplessness in releasing the money, on
the ground of financial constraints. It
further transpires, that the petitioner
moved a contempt application. During the
pendency of these proceedings, a sum of
Rs.2.85 lacs was paid on various dates,
i.e., between 3.5.2002 and 29.10.2002
towards gratuity, pension and arrears of
dearness allowance. Since interest was
not
paid
by
the
respondents,
consequently, the present writ petition
was filed.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that it was admitted
by the respondents that the petitioner was
entitled for the payment of the post
retirement benefits and the only ground
for the non-payment was the lack of
finance. The petitioner submitted that in
view of the admitted position and, in view
of the fact that the fault clearly lay with
the respondents, the petitioner was,
therefore, entitled for interest @ 18% per
annum on the belated payments.

4. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that
the payment of the interest could not be
given to the petitioner as a matter of right
since there is no statutory provision for
the payment of the interest. The learned
counsel for the respondents however,
admitted that the payment of the interest
could only be given on equitable grounds,
provided it was found that the respondents
were not justified in withholding the
amount. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the respondents relied
upon a Division Bench decision of this
Court, in the case of Jaiswal Grain
Agency and another Vs. State of U.P.
and another, 2005 (3) AWC 2989, in
which it was held that the interest could
be awarded on equitable ground, provided
it was found that the respondents were not
justified in withholding the amount. The
Court held-

"Thus, the law can be summarised
that the interest, being compensatory in
nature, should be awarded if it is provided
in the contract/agreement or the statutory
provisions provide for it. It may also be
awarded on equitable grounds provided
the facts and circumstances of the case
justify it and the law does not prohibit it."

5. Further reliance was made in the
decision of the Supreme Court in Union
of India vs. Upper Ganges Sugar and
Industries
Ltd.,
2005(1)SCC
750,
wherein it was held that if the Tribunal
did not grant any interest while awarding
the compensation, the same could not be
claimed again by the respondents and that
the interest could be awarded on the
ground of equity provided the payment
was withheld unjustifiably.

6. There is no quarrel with the
aforesaid proposition. The interest would
be payable on equitable grounds, if the
amount had been withheld unjustifiably
by the respondents. In the present case,
the respondents have admitted that the
1 All] Ram Narain Tripathi V. State of U.P. and others
371
post retirement benefits was payable to
the petitioner with effect from the date of
his retirement, but the same was not paid.
The only ground alleged was that the
respondents did not have the finance to
pay the post retirement benefits. In my
opinion, this cannot be a ground for not
releasing the post retirement benefits. In
State of U.P. vs. M. Padmanabhan
Nair, 1985 (1) SCC 429, the Supreme
Court held that the pension and gratuity
are no longer a bounty to be distributed by
the Government to its employees on their
retirement and that the pension and
gratuity are valuable rights and property
in their hands and that any culpable delay
in the settlement and disbursement of the
post retirement benefits must be visited
with the penalty and payment of interest
at the current market rate till the date of
the actual payment.

7. In H. Gangahanume Gowda vs.
Karnataka
Agro
Industries
Corporation Ltd, 2003(3) SCC 40, the
Supreme Court held that if there was a
delay on the part of the employer in not
releasing the post retirement benefits, it
was mandatory for the Court to award
interest. Similar view was also given by
this Court in Tirath Raj Upadhyay vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2004 (2)
UPLBEC 1652 as well as in R. Kapur vs.
Director of Inspection (Painting and
Publication)
Income
Tax
and
another,1994(6)SCC 589.

8. In view of the aforesaid decisions,
it does not lie in the mouth of the
respondents to contend that they do not
have the finance to pay the post
retirement benefits. Consequently, in the
opinion of the Court, since the post
retirement benefits has been paid after a
period of 10 years and the delay was
without any justification, consequently,
the respondents are liable to pay penal
interest. Since the post retirement benefits
is the lifeline for a person after his
retirement, the non-disbursement of the
post retirement benefits clearly and
squarely infringes the fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India to a citizen to live a life of
retirement with dignity. The petitioner
was made to run from pillar to post by the
respondents without any justification.
Consequently, the petitioner is not only
entitled for interest but also cost of this
litigation.

9. In my opinion, remitting the
matter back to the authorities to calculate
the interest would serve no useful purpose
as it would further delay and harass the
petitioner who has now reached the age of
75 years. If the amount had been released
by the respondents immediately after the
retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner
would have earned some interest if the
same was invested. Even if this Court
awards interest @ 10% per annum, the
minimum amount towards interest would
come to approximately Rs.35,000/-. The
petitioner is also entitled for cost of
litigation and for the mental harassment
that
he
underwent.
Consequently,
considering the entire matter, this Court
quantifies the interest as well as cost at
Rs.50,000/-. This amount shall be paid
without any further delay within two
months from the date a certified copy of
this judgment is produced before the
authority concerned.

10. The writ petition stands allowed.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE