Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – Appellants were Lecturers/Principals from Government Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition filed – During pendency of petition, State agreed to revise pension – Statement made in court on instructions that interest on delayed payment will be made – Single Judge dismissed appeals as withdrawn – State filed LPA to challenge payment of interest on arrears – Division Bench allowed appeal vide impugned judgment – Held, Appellants being fence-sitters not entitled to interest which was not granted to Government College employees – Appeals dismissed:
Held: Appellants are retired Lecturers/Principals from Government Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – They claimed parity with Lecturers/Librarians in Government Colleges for increase in pension based on the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 which were deemed to have come into force on 01.01.2006 – Respondent authorities denied claims for revision – Writ petitions filed by appellants – During pendency of writ petitions, State agreed to claims for revised pension – State Counsel also gave undertaking based on instructions of an assistant present in court that interest on delayed payment would be made – Single Judge of High Court recorded statements and dismissed the writ petition filed as withdrawn – Review application by State to review the order in respect of payment of interest on the amount of arrears from 01.01.2006 was dismissed with liberty to file before appropriate forum – Letters Patent Appeals filed by State allowed by Division Bench of High Court vide impugned judgment.
Retired employees/Lecturers of the Government Colleges were given revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006 once their litigation achieved finality in 2014 – They were not granted interest on delayed pension – Since present Appellants were claiming parity, they should not be entitled to payment of interest – Appellants initiated writ proceedings in 2015 – They waited till rights of the retired employees/Lecturers of the Government Colleges crystalised and thereafter, made representation to Respondent authorities – Hence not entitled to receive interest – To be treated as fence-sitters – Though there may be lapses on part of officials representing the State in furnishing instructions, that by itself will not give room to Appellants to get unjust enrichment – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 17-19]
Court should pass orders only based on written instructions – enable to Court to fix liability in case of misrepresentation: Held: Appellants’ case rests on the factum recorded by the Single Judge that the Assistant present in Court gave oral instructions to State counsel – No written instruction furnished by the State, matter was not argued on merits, and order was passed only on concessions made on behalf of State – Each party should present truthful and accurate information to court to facilitate fair adjudication – Officials/ counsel appearing for the State should have proper written instructions from competent authority – Relying on oral instructions may lead to factual errors, misunderstanding/misrepresentations, etc., compromising integrity of judicial process – Court should pass orders only based on written instructions to enable it to fix the liability on correct official(s), responsible for any such wrongful representations/instructions. [Paras 18, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.