Shri Hassain Ali Sarker & Ors. vs The State Of Meghalaya & Ors.

Heard Mr. Hassan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG in all the aforesaid appeals.

By the aforesaid appeals, the appellants have impugned the order dated 10^th July, 2026, only to the extent that it does not grant any interest on the amount paid to the appellants.

A few facts as are necessary to consider the appeals are as under;

All the appellants, except the appellant in WA No.38 of 2026, were employed in different capacities in Bhaitbari Higher Secondary School, West Garo Hills i.e., either Assistant teacher, Hindi teacher or as Chowkidar. As far as appellant in WA No.38 of 2026 is concerned, the appellant’s husband was appointed as an Assistant teacher in Bhaitbari Higher Secondary School, West Garo Hills. All the appellants hereinabove, including the appellant’s husband in WA No.38 of 2026, superannuated some time in 2019-2020. It is not in dispute that the first instalment of Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of ₹3.50 lakhs was released to the employees as per the old DCRG scheme.

On 19^th March, 2025, the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya, conveyed the approval of the Government for enhancement of the ceiling of DCRG to the staff (teaching and non-teaching) of Deficit Secondary/Higher Secondary School and Lower Primary and Upper Primary School from ₹3.50 lakhs to ₹10,00,000 lakhs w.e.f. 1^st January, 2017 onwards.

It appears that the employees i.e., the appellants and the appellant’s husband in WA No.38 of 2026, filed representations before the respondent No.3, praying therein for release of the balance enhanced DCRG amount to them. Writ petitions were filed by the aforesaid appellants in this Court before the learned Single Judge with a prayer to release the balance enhanced DCRG amount of ₹6.50 lakhs alongwith interest for the delayed payment to the appellants.

On 28^th January, 2026, during the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the appellants, the respondent authorities accorded sanction for payment of the DCRG to the retired/deceased staff and as such, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent authorities released the balance enhanced DCRG amount of ₹6.50 lakhs to the appellants on 27^th February, 2026.

In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions filed by the appellants vide judgment and order dated 10^th July, 2026, since the appellants were paid the enhanced amount from January, 2026, without any interest on delayed payment of enhanced DCRG. 9. The appellants are aggrieved only to the extent of non-grant of interest on the delayed payment of enhanced DCRG.

It is a matter of record that on 19^th March, 2025, the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya, conveyed the approval of the Government for enhancement of the ceiling of DCRG to the staff (teaching and non-teaching) of deficit Secondary/Higher Secondary School and Lower Primary and Upper Primary School from ₹3.50 lakhs to ₹10,00,000 lakhs w.e.f. 1^st January, 2017 onwards.

It is also a matter of record that pursuant to the sanction conveyed by the Governor of Meghalaya, the Education Department accorded sanction for payment of DCRG to the retired/deceased staff of the existing deficit Secondary and Higher Secondary schools on 28^th January, 2026.

It is not in dispute that as soon as sanction was accorded on 28^th January, 2026 within one month thereof, the retired/deceased staff i.e., the appellants were paid the enhanced amount.

The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants in all the aforesaid appeals is that the appellants are entitled for interest from the time the approval was granted till sanction was accorded. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in D.D. Tewari (Dead) through legal representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & ors reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894 in support of his submission.

We have perused the judgment. There can be no dispute with respect to what is held therein. However, the proposition agitated by the learned counsel for the appellants herein is not covered by the said judgment and as such, it is clearly distinguishable.

Payment of interest on delayed payment, if any, will have to be considered from the date sanction is accorded. In the event, there is any delay in making the payment, post according of sanction, depending on the facts and circumstances or reasons for delay, interest can be awarded. Interest cannot be given from the date of approval of the policy till sanction is accorded. Once sanction is accorded, payment must be made expeditiously. If payment is delayed depending on the number of months of delay, the question of interest component would come into the picture. In the facts, payment of ₹6,50,000/- was made within one month of sanction being accorded. Hence, the facts in hand, do not warrant grant of any interest during the period the approval till sanction was accorded by the Government.

In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeals. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.