Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. The common submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all the appeals is that by the order impugned herein, the appellants have been illegally and arbitrarily denied interest on the belated payment of revised pension w.e.f 01.01.2006, by observing that they were fence-sitters and hence cannot be placed at a better pedestal than the original litigants, who had successfully contested and won the case and were not granted interest. According to the learned counsel, the said observation of the High Court is in complete disregard to the fact that the original litigants referred to in the order impugned herein, were Lecturers/ Librarians in the Government Colleges, who had started getting the revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and from whom recovery was initiated by the respondent authorities on the premise that they were made excess payment and therefore, the issue of interest on delayed payment of pension did not arise therein. It is further elaborated that the appellants who had retired from Government Aided Private Colleges prior to 01.01.2006 were claiming parity with the pension allowed and paid to the Lecturers of Government Colleges and hence, by no stretch of imagination they could be termed as fence sitters; and by payment of interest on the delayed payment of pension, it cannot be said that they will be placed at a better footing than the original litigants, since the original litigants continued to get the revised pension, whereas in the case of the appellants, even the revised pension was not paid to them until the year 2017-2018, despite the passing of the orders dated 30.11.2016 by the learned Single Judge.
11. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that denial of grant of interest to the appellants is contrary to the stand taken by the State in the writ proceedings, in which, the Learned Single Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016 on the basis of the undertaking given by the State Counsel that the revised pension is allowed to the appellants, who had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and the Government shall pay interest on the delayed payment. Thus, it 1744 is urged that in terms of the orders dated 30.11.2016 passed in CWP No.8988 of 2015 etc. cases, the appellants were entitled to revised pension along with interest on the delayed payment.
12. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the Contempt Petition bearing COCP No.2846 of 2017 in CWP No. 8988 of 2015, titled as Banarsi Dass and Ors. v. Jyoti Arora and another, an affidavit was filed by Mrs. Jyoti Arora, Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, Chandigarh, on 01.05.2018 stating inter alia that the writ petitioners therein are entitled to interest from the date of issuance of the Policy dated 12.10.2010 by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Haryana, regarding revision of pension/ family pension of the retirees of Non-Government Affiliated Aided Colleges in the State; and accordingly, interest at 9% was calculated w.e.f. 12.10.2010. However, on 22.10.2018, an additional affidavit dated 22.10.2018 was filed by the said Mrs. Jyoti Arora, stating that the writ petitioners therein are not entitled to any interest. Thus, the respondent authorities have taken different stand at every stage of the proceedings, thereby depriving the appellants from getting their legitimate claim of interest on the delayed payment. Without properly appreciating the same, the High Court erred in allowing the State’s appeals by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in respect of grant of interest on the delayed payment to the appellants and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
13. Opposing the claim of the appellants, the learned counsel for the State / respondent(s) made the following submissions: (i) Rule 6 of the Rules, 2009 specifically deals with the case of Retired Government employees and there is no provision in the Rules, 2009 to award interest for any belated payment; (ii) Earlier and present litigations only pertain to grant of revised pension to the Government College Lecturers and Private Aided College Lecturers, both on the basis of 2009 Rules; (iii) The pay scale revisions are retrospective in nature and are without interest; (iv) interest cannot be offered, based on equitable considerations;8 and (v) Concessions made by a Government counsel cannot be granted, unless there are written Union of India and Others v. Dr. J K Goel (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 161 [2024] 10 S.C.R. K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others instructions from a responsible officer.9 Thus, the learned counsel submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court correctly denied the grant of interest on the delayed payment, which does not call for any interference by this court.
14. As a riposte, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decisions relied on the side of the State are not applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein the case was not contested on merits and based on the statement made by the State in the writ proceedings, the learned Single Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016 relating to grant of interest on the delayed payment. It is also submitted that on behalf of the State, one Assistant by name Preet Singh was present in the Court and after obtaining instructions from him, the State counsel made the statement before the learned Single Judge that the Government shall pay interest on the delayed payment. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to this Court that the State may be directed to grant interest at the rate of 9% from 01.01.2006 or at least from the date on which the Government approved the grant of revised pension to the retired teachers of the Government Aided Private Colleges.
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and learned AAG appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
16. Concededly, the appellants were paid the arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006, on par with the employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges, during 2017-2018. Claiming interest on such payment, which was originally granted by the learned Single Judge and was subsequently, denied by the High Court, the appellants are before us.
17. As we have already stated, in terms of the order dated 25.07.2012, which attained finality on 10.07.2014, the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges were given revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006, on 07.11.2014. However, they were not granted any interest for the payment of arrears of pension due to them. Having compared with them, the appellants sought revised pension, by filing CWP No.8988 of 2015 and connected cases. Periyar & Pareekannai Rubber Ltd v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 1746 During the writ proceedings, the State accepted the claim of the appellants and paid the arrears of revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006. Therefore, since the appellants were claiming parity with the employees / Lecturers of the Government colleges, they should not be entitled to any payment of interest.
18. Apparently, the entire case of the appellants rests on the factum recorded by the learned Single Judge in his orders dated 30.11.2016 to the effect that the Assistant, Preet Singh gave oral instructions to the State counsel that interest will be given by the Government on delayed payment of revised pension. However, it is interesting to note that there was no written instruction furnished by the State; the appellants did not argue the matter on merits; and the learned Single Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016, only on the concessions made on behalf of the State. In such circumstances, the claim of the appellants seeking interest, has no legs to stand.
19. It is also required to be pointed out that the revised structure of pay of teachers and equivalent teachers in Universities and Colleges in Haryana, was issued by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, on 27.08.2009, which was subsequently clarified on 02.09.2009. On the basis of the same, the employees / teachers working in the Government colleges received the revised pay. In the meanwhile, the Rules, 2009 relating to all pensioners / family pensioners, who were drawing their pension/ family pension or who were eligible / entitled to pension / family pension as on 01.01.2006, were notified on 17.04.2009, and they were deemed to have come into force with effect from 01.01.2006. As per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2009, and the subsequent clarification issued by the Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana, the person, who had completed 3 years of service in the pre-revised scale of pay and/ or the corresponding pay scale applicable prior to 01.01.1996, shall be placed in the minimum of the pay band of Rs.37400 – 67000 + AGP of Rs.9000/- for revision of pension / family pension, with effect from 01.01.2006. Pursuant to the same, the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government colleges started litigation in the year 2010, which attained finality in the year 2014 and consequently, they were paid the arrears of revised pension on 07.11.2014. Only thereafter, the appellants initiated the writ proceedings in the year 2015. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the appellants waited till the rights of the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government [2024] 10 S.C.R. K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others Colleges, were crystalised and thereafter, made representation to the respondent authorities and hence, they are not entitled to get any interest, by treating them as fence-sitters. Though there may be some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State in furnishing instructions about the case, to the Court, however that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment.
20. In view of the above stated reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the common judgment passed by the High Court, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge qua grant of interest on the belated payment of pension to the appellants.
21. Therefore, all the Appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
22. Before parting, we wish to observe that each party should present truthful and accurate information to the court to facilitate fair adjudication. Such information should be provided in the form of writing. Relying on the oral instructions may lead to factual errors, misunderstanding / misrepresentations, etc., ultimately compromising the integrity of the judicial process. Misleading representations not only affect the parties involved, but also erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole. The Court should also pass orders only based on the written instructions, so as to enable it to fix the liability on the correct official(s), responsible for any such wrongful representations / instructions. Therefore, it is imperative that the official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to represent the Government authorities should equip with proper written instructions from the competent authority(ies). Needless to state that if any misrepresentation is made on the part of the parties, in particular, Government authorities, the court should not shy away from it, rather act sternly by mulcting with costs on the official(s) who make the same. Result of the case: Appeals dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)