Page 1

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   1

NON-REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7113   OF 2014   (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25015 of 2011)

   D.D. TEWARI(D) THR. LRS.                 ……APPELLANTS

VERSUS

UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

   J U D G M E N T  

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.  

2.   Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties.  

The  appellant  (since  deceased)  is  aggrieved  by  the  

impugned  order  dated  14.03.2011  passed  by  the  High  

Court of   Punjab  and Haryana at Chandigarh  in LPA

Page 2

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   2

No.  1818  of  2010  in  affirming  the  judgment  of  the  

learned single Judge passed in C.W.P. No. 1048 of 2010  

wherein he was not awarded interest for the delayed  

payment  of  pension  and  gratuity  amount,  for  which  

he was legally entitled to.  Therefore, the  appellant  

approached  this  Court  for  grant  of  interest  on  the  

delayed payment on the retiral benefits of pension and  

gratuity payable to him by the respondents.

3.    The appellant was appointed to the post of Line  

Superintendent  on  30.08.1968  with  the  Uttar  Haryana  

Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.   In the year 1990, he was  

promoted to the post of Junior Engineer-I. During his  

service, the appellant remained in charge of number of  

transformers after getting issued them from the stores  

and deposited a number of damaged transformers in the  

stores.  While depositing the damaged transformers in  

the  stores,  some  shortage  in  transformers  oil  and  

breakages of the parts of damaged transformers were  

erroneously debited to the account of the appellant and

Page 3

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   3

later  on  it  was  held  that  for  the  shortages  and  

breakages there is no negligence on the part of the  

appellant.  On attaining the age of superannuation, he  

retired  from  service  on  31.10.2006.   The  retiral  

benefits  of  the  appellant  were  withheld  by  the  

respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was  

due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were  

not pending against the appellant on the date of his  

retirement.  Therefore,  the  appellant  approached  the  

High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the  

respondents regarding payment of pension and release of  

the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an  

interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments.  

The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition  

vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the  

action of the respondents in withholding the amount of  

gratuity and directing the respondents to release the  

withheld amount of gratuity within three months without  

awarding interest as claimed by the appellant.  The

Page 4

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   4

High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court  

particularly, in the case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs.  

M. Padmanabhan Nair1, wherein this Court reiterated its  

earlier view holding that the pension and gratuity are  

no  longer  any  bounty  to  be  distributed  by  the  

Government to its employees on their retirement, but,  

have  become,  under  the  decisions  of  this  Court,  

valuable rights and property in their hands and any  

culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof  

must be dealt with the penalty of payment of interest  

at the current market rate till actual payment to the  

employees.  The said legal principle laid down by this  

Court  still  holds  good  in  so  far  as  awarding  the  

interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is  

concerned.  This aspect of the matter was adverted to  

in the judgment of the learned single Judge without  

assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as  

claimed by the appellant.  That is why that portion of  

1

(1985) 1 SCC 429

Page 5

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   5

the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved  

of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before  

Division Bench of the High Court.  The Division Bench  

of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is  

impugned in this appeal.  It has adverted to the fact  

that there is no order passed by the learned single  

Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the  

appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by  

him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault  

with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the  

appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.  

The correctness of the order is under challenge in this  

appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.

4.  It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  the  appellant  

retired  from  service  on  attaining  the  age  of  

superannuation  on  31.10.2006  and  the  order  of  the  

learned single Judge after adverting to the relevant  

facts and the legal position has given a direction to  

the employer-respondent to pay the erroneously withheld

Page 6

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   6

pensionary  benefits  and  the  gratuity  amount  to  the  

legal representatives of the deceased employee without  

awarding interest for which the appellant is legally  

entitled,  therefore, this Court has to exercise its  

appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of  

justice in denying  the interest to be paid or payable  

by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the  

deceased employee till the date of payment as per the  

aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in  

the  judgment  referred  to  supra.  We  have  to  award  

interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount  

of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be  

paid by the respondent.

5. It  is  needless  to  mention  that  the  respondents  

have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount  

for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for  

payment  of  penal  amount  on  the  delayed  payment  of  

gratuity  under  the  provisions  of  the  Payment  of  

Gratuity  Act,  1972.  Having  regard  to  the  facts  and

Page 7

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   7

circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that  

in the case in hand.    

6.   For the reasons stated above, we award interest  

at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and  

gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the  

date of the actual payment.  If this amount is not paid  

within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of  

this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate  

of 18% per annum from the date of amount falls due to  

the deceased employee.  With the above directions, this  

appeal is allowed.

……………………………………………………J.  [DIPAK MISRA]

……………………………………………………J.   [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi,       August 1, 2014

Page 8

C.A. @ SLP©No.25015 of 2011                                   8