Summary
Retired teachers of government-aided private colleges in Haryana received arrears of revised pension from 01.01.2006 after the State conceded their claim. The Supreme Court upheld the denial of interest on the arrears: the concession on interest rested only on an Assistant's oral instructions, the appellants had waited for others' litigation to succeed before claiming parity, and the original litigants had themselves received no interest. The Court also directed that government counsel act only on written instructions.
Issues
- Whether the appellants, paid arrears of revised pension from 01.01.2006, were entitled to interest on the delayed payment.
- Whether an oral undertaking by State counsel to pay interest, given on an Assistant's instructions and recorded in a withdrawal order, binds the State.
- Whether the appellants were fence-sitters who could not be better placed than the original litigants, who got no interest.
Provisions considered
- Rule 6, Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009The rule fixes a minimum revised pension at 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised scale. Through it, pensioners with three years in the pre-revised scale were placed at the minimum of Rs. 37400-67000 + AGP Rs. 9000 from 01.01.2006. That was the basis on which retired government college lecturers litigated first and the appellants later sought parity. (¶¶ 8, 19)
Held
- Retired government college lecturers, whose revised pension litigation became final in 2014, were paid arrears from 01.01.2006 without interest. The appellants claimed parity with them and received the same arrears, so they were not entitled to interest. (¶ 17)
- The claim to interest rested only on the Single Judge recording that an Assistant had orally instructed State counsel that interest would be paid. There was no written instruction from the State, the petitions were not argued on merits, and the orders were passed on the concession alone, so the claim could not succeed. (¶ 18)
- The appellants waited until the rights of the government college lecturers had crystallised in litigation from 2010 to 2014 before claiming in 2015. They were fence-sitters, and lapses by State officials in giving instructions could not justify their unjust enrichment through interest. (¶ 19)
- Parties must place truthful and accurate information before the court in writing. Counsel and officials representing the Government must carry proper written instructions from the competent authority, courts should pass orders on written instructions so that responsibility can be fixed, and costs should be imposed on officials who make misrepresentations. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court's judgment setting aside the grant of interest on belated revised pension upheld; no order as to costs.