State of Haryana and Others vs Jethu Ram

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, decreeing suit of the plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction, the defendant-State has approached this court by way of instant appeal. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in its impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff filed civil suit against the defendants for declaration, to the effect that he was entitled to G.P.F. statements pertaining to A/c No. HR/Edu/11024, HR/GA/14080 and HR/GA/18026 from 1972-73 to 30.9.2001 i.e. the date of his retirement and he was also entitled to the arrears of amount of GPF and additional D.A., found due to him alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of amount found due upto the date of actual payment, with mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply the copies of G.P.F. statements, pertaining to the A/c No. HR/Edu/11024, HR/GA/14080 and HR/GA/18026 from 1972-73 to 30.9.2001 i.e. the date of his retirement and to render the accounts, besides to pay arrears of amount found due against the GPF and additional DA to him alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum from the date of amount of arrears found due upto the date of actual payment and to pay the amount of damages suffered by him on account of mental pain and agony to be assessed by the learned court, with the averments that on 30.9.2001 he retired from the post of A.E.T.O. on superannuation. On 21.9.1962, he joined in the Haryana Education and his GPF Account number was HR/Edu/11024 and he served in the said department upto 5/1972. Thereafter, he joined Excise and Taxation Department, Haryana on 26.5.1972 and his G.P.F. Account No. HR/Edu/11024 remained in the said department upto 3/1974. Later on, GPF Account Number HR/GA/14080 was allotted to him and the said account remained upto 12/1975. Thereafter, GPF Account No. HR/GA/18026 was reallotted to him and this G.P.F. Account number continued upto the date of his retirement. It was further averred that on 16.3.1978, he wrote a letter to defendant No. 3, demanding his G.P.F. Account statements for the year 1972-73 to 1976-77, but he foiled to give reply of the said letter. He also wrote letter dated 16.1.1979 to defendant No. 3 and it informed him vide letter dated 6.2.1979 that "out of the remaining missing credits, credits for 12/75, 5/76, 6/76, 1/77 and 4/77 amounting to Rs. 350/- had also been traced out and would be adjusted in the year 1978-79 and efforts were being made to trace out the remaining missing credits from 9/72 to 5/73". Defendant No. 3 vide its letter dated 19.7.1979 written as "Discrepancy in G.P. Fund Account HR/GA/18026". In continuation to its letter dated 6.2.1979 again required the details of deductions from 9/72 to 5/73 duly certified by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Gurgaon, for adjusting these credits in G.P.F. Account No. HR/GA/18026. In reference to letter dated 19.7.1979, he again sent the deductions from 9/72 to 5/73 and requested defendant No. 3 to send the G.P.F. Statement for the year 1972-73 to 1978-79. Defendant No. 3 in response to his letter dated 27.9.1979 had written letter No. FDS 12/HR/GA/79-80/2216-17 to the Branch Officer Incharge Fund X Section (L) on the subject "Discrepancy in A/c No. HR/GA/18026 of Shri Jethu Ram Jain" with the request to transfer the G.P.F. deductions from A/c No. HR/Edu/11024. In November, 1999, he requested defendant No. 3 to update his G.P.F. Fund credits as well as enhanced instalments of DA''s from the year 1972-73 upto date and issued year wise statements with upto date interest from 1972-73 to 31.3.2001, but instead of issuing year wise statements, the opening balance in the year 1999-2000 was shown Rs. 2,77,273/- arbitrarily and without providing an opportunity of being heard. On 11.1.2002, 21.2.2002 and 10.1.2006 he again demanded the complete details of credits from the year 1972-73 to 31.3.2001, but the office of defendant No. 3 had not issued the same for the reasons best known to defendant No. 3. Thereafter, he served a legal notice dated 22.6.2006 upon the defendants, but of no avail. Hence, this suit.

On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their joint and separate written statements. In their written statement, defendants No. 1 and 2 raised preliminary objections regarding limitation, cause of action and improper valuation etc.

On merits, it was submitted that the payment of G.P.F. to a retired employee was to be disbursed by defendant No. 3. The copy of G.P.F. statement of each year, to each Government employee to whom the G.P.F. account number was allotted, was delivered by the office of defendant No. 3 so that the discrepancy, if any, as pointed out by the Government employee may be rectified. The plaintiff must also have received the G.P.F. statement of each year during his service, but no discrepancy of any kind during the service period had been pointed out by him. All other averments made in the plaint were also controverted and the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff was prayed for.

In its written statement, defendant No. 3 submitted that on receipt of requisite information from the Department, the missing credits of Rs. 102/, Rs. 226/-, Rs. 356/- and Rs. 1135/- were traced out and adjusted in his G.P.F. account number and residual payment amounting to Rs. 6221/- including interest upto 3/2002 i.e. upto six months after the months of his retirement as admissible under G.P.F. rules was authorised to him through Department vide authority letter dated 15.3.2007. Regarding remaining missing credits, concerned department was requested to supply the detail of said credits so that payment of these credits could also be authorised. Now, on receipt of details of these remaining missing credits from the plaintiff vide his letter dated 8.5.2007 and vide department memo No. 1730/EA, dated 11.5.2007, the residual payment amounting to Rs. 10,931/- including interest upto 3/2002 i.e. upto six months after the month of retirement as admissible under GPF rules had also been authorised to him through department letter dated 7.6.2007. All the GPF deductions except for aforesaid period made by the department from his salary were duly accounted for in his GPF account numbers from time to time. Hence, all the amount lying in his GPF account numbers alongwith interest had been authorised to the plaintiff and no more payment was due to be authorised to him. All other averments made in the plaint were also controverted and the dismissal of the suit of the plaint was prayed for.

On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:--

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration sought? OPP

Whether the plaintiffs suit is time barred? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Relief."

In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case. Accordingly, the suit was decreed, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 9.1.2010. Defendants filed their first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned lower appellate court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.3.2010. Hence, this second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the only issue involved in this appeal was regarding rate of interest. The disputed amount had already been paid as recorded by the learned trial court itself in para 11 of the impugned judgment dated 9.1.2010. The only issue left to be decided is as to how much rate of interest ought to have been awarded, because the learned courts below have awarded exorbitant rate of interest @ 18% p.a. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relies on the following judgments:- Sambhu Nath Sharma v. State of Punjab, 1993(3) S.C.T. 715 , State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, and Kirat Gopal v. Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2002(20 S.C.T. 958. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, to the extent awarding 18% interest to the plaintiff.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the plaintiff was put to wholly unwarranted harassment at the hands of the defendant-authorities. It was his amount, which was illegally withheld by the authorities and came to be paid only during the pendency of the suit after an inordinate long period. In such a situation, the learned courts below were fully justified for awarding interest @ 18% p.a., which was not on higher side. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant appeal deserves to be partly allowed for the following more than one reasons.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case discussed hereinabove, following is the substantial question of law that falls for consideration of this court:--

"Whether both the learned courts below exceeded their jurisdiction, while, awarding 18% interest, which was contrary to judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as well as Full Bench of this court."

On the issue of awarding interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits or any other service benefit, no straight jacket formula can be laid down by fixing a particular rate of interest. It is so said, because each case is to be decided as per its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Broadly speaking, the rate of interest can be from 6% to 18%, depending upon the fact situation of each case. So far as the present case is concerned, interest @ 12% p.a. will be just and reasonable. Since the learned courts below awarded 18% interest, without justifying the same by referring to any strong reason for it, the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained as such and the same are liable to be suitably modified.

Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra), wherein Hon''ble Supreme Court awarded interest @ 12% p.a. on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount. Similarly, a Full Bench of this court in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) R.S.J. 318, held that the interest can be awarded on the delayed payment of retrial benefits from 12% to 18%. However, the Hon''ble Full Bench granted 12% interest. Respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this court, the substantial question of law posed hereinabove is answered in favour of the appellants-State, holding that the rate of interest @ 18% p.a. awarded by both the courts below was contrary to the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this court. Answered accordingly.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained as it is. Consequently, the same are modified and the rate of interest is ordered to be reduced from 18% to 12% p.a., in consonance with the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this court, noticed hereinabove. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands partly allowed as indicated above, however, with no order as to costs.