Holding

The appellants are not entitled to interest on the delayed payment of revised pension; the High Court’s order setting aside the interest award is affirmed.

Summary

The appellants, retired lecturers and principals of government‑aided private colleges in Haryana, sought parity with government‑college teachers by claiming a revised pension under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009, together with interest on the delayed payment of arrears dating back to 1 January 2006. During the pendency of their writ petitions, the State, through an oral undertaking by an assistant official present in court, promised to pay interest, leading the Single Judge to dismiss the petitions as withdrawn and order release of arrears with interest. The State later challenged the interest award, and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, holding the appellants were “fence‑sitters” and not entitled to interest, as the original government‑college retirees had not received interest either. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Rules, 2009 provide for interest, whether oral instructions bind the State, and whether the appellants could claim interest despite being later beneficiaries. The Court held that the Rules contain no provision for interest, that oral instructions without written authority are insufficient, and that the appellants, having waited for the original litigants’ rights to crystallise before seeking parity, are not entitled to interest. Consequently, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether retired lecturers/principals of government‑aided private colleges are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009.
Whether an oral undertaking given by a government official in court creates a binding obligation to pay interest.
Whether the appellants qualify as “fence‑sitters” and thus cannot claim interest despite the Single Judge’s earlier order.

Legislation cited

Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009s. Rule 6

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension. Headnotes† Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – 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

Subjects

Haryana Civil Services Pension RulesParityFence‑sittersInterest on delayed pension paymentOral instructionsMisrepresentationJudicial integrityWritten instructions from parties

Judgment

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736 : 2024 INSC 803

K.C. Kaushik and Others
v.
State of Haryana and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024)
21 October 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private
Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled
to interest on delayed payment of revised pension.

Headnotes†
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

* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1737

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

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]
1738 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

List of Acts
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009.

List of Keywords
Haryana Civil Services Pension Rules; Parity; Fence-sitters ; Interest
on delayed pension payment; Oral instructions; Misrepresentation;
Judicial integrity; Written instructions from parties.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2022 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 2396 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11720, 11712 and 11713-11719 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Narender Hooda, Yatindra Singh, Sr. Advs., Rahul Rathore,
Shiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj Nandal, Shivendra Dwivedi, Dr. Surender
Singh Hooda, Ms. Tannu, Ms. Awantika Manohar, Ms. Parul
Dhruvey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Nikhil Goel, A.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, Samyak Jain, Ms. Drishti
Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Naveen Goel,
Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

R. Mahadevan, J.

Leave granted.
2. The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and
order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,1 in LPA Nos. 2396 of

1 For brevity, “the High Court”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1739

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

2017 (O&M) etc. cases,2 by which, the High Court has allowed the
appeals filed by the State/respondent(s) and set aside the orders
of the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2016 in CWP No.8988 of
2015 and other connected cases, insofar as the grant of interest to
the writ petitioners/ appellants herein.
3. The appellants were working as Lecturers / Principals in the
Government Aided Private Colleges in the State of Haryana and
they retired from service prior to 01.01.2006. Claiming parity with
the Lecturers/Librarians of the Government Colleges in relation to
the increase of their pension, based on the Haryana Civil Services
(Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009,3 the appellants preferred the
aforesaid civil writ petitions for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the orders of the respondent authorities denying
revised pension to the appellants as that of the employees/teachers of
the Government Colleges in Haryana, and to direct the respondent(s)
to grant pension to the appellants in the corresponding scale of
Rs.37400 – 67000 + AGP4 Rs.9000/- with effect from 01.01.2006
with interest.
4. In the course of hearing of the civil writ petitions, the State counsel
produced a copy of the letter dated 07.11.2016 sent by the Principal
Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department,
Chandigarh, addressed to the Director Higher Education, Haryana,
Panchkula, by which the State had agreed to give revised pension to
the retired employees of the Private Aided Colleges, and also gave an
undertaking on the basis of the instructions furnished by one Assistant
by name Preet Singh, who was present in the Court, to the effect that
the State would also pay interest on the delayed payment. In view of
the said letter and the oral instructions, the learned counsel for the
appellants sought to withdraw the petitions. The learned Single Judge
recorded all these statements and dismissed the civil writ petitions as
withdrawn on 30.11.2016, besides issuing a direction to release the
arrears of pension to the appellants within a period of three months.
Subsequently, on applications, by order dated 23.12.2016, the word
“w.e.f. 01.01.2006” was inserted after the words “revised pension”

2 State of Haryana and another v. Banarsi Dass and Others
3 Hereinafter shortly referred as “the Rules, 2009”
4 Academic Grade Pay
1740 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in the said orders dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge in CWP No.8988 of 2015 and connected cases.
5. Between 2017 and 2018, the State disbursed the arrears of revised
pension to the appellants. However, they preferred a Review
Application bearing No.RA-CW-383-2017, seeking to review the
learned Single Judge’s orders dated 30.11.2016 passed in CWP
No.8988 of 2015 and connected matters, on the premise that payment
of interest on the amount of arrears to be paid w.e.f. 01.01.2006
was not justified as the decision to revise the pension in the pay
band of Rs. 37400 - 67000 + 9000 AGP was taken and approved
by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, vide U.O.No.
66/5/2016-2FD-II/28139 dated 07.10.2016 and therefore, interest
on belated payment of pension was payable not from 01.01.2006
but from 07.10.2016. By order dated 16.08.2017, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the Review application, with liberty to the State to
approach the appellate forum.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in the
Review Application, the State preferred LPA(s) before the Division
Bench seeking to set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge
dated 30.11.2016, to the extent of granting payment of interest as
clarified on 23.12.2016 in the civil writ petitions and on 16.08.2017
in the review application. The High Court allowed the State’s appeals
and set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge with respect
to grant of interest on delayed payment of revised pension to the
appellants, by the common judgment and order impugned herein.
7. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly
that the appellants were paid the revised pension with effect from
01.01.2006, the only question to be answered in all these cases is,
whether they are entitled to interest on belated payment of revised
pension.
8. Let us first examine the genesis of the present lis. The Haryana
Government, Department of Finance, vide Notification dated 17th April,
2009, framed the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part - I
Rules, 2009,5 which were deemed to have come into force on the
1st January, 2006. The Rules, 2009 applied to all pensioners / family

5 For short, “the Rules, 2009”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1741

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

pensioners, who were drawing their pension/ family pension or who
were eligible / entitled to pension/family pension as on 01.01.2006
under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as amended from
time to time and as applicable to the pensioners/family pensioners
under the rule making power of Haryana Government. Rule 6 deals
with ‘minimum ceiling of pension/family pension’, which reads as
under:
“6(1). The fixation of revised entitlement of pension shall
be subject to the provision that the revised entitlement of
pension so worked out shall, in no case, be lower than
fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band +
grade pay in the corresponding revised scale in terms of
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, or as
the case may be, Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career
Progression) Rules, 2008, to the pre-revised pay scale
from which the pensioner had retired.
(2) The entitlement of pension calculated at 50 per cent
of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay
would be at the minimum of the pay in the pay band
(irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the
grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale.
For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised
scale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding pay
band being Rs.37400-67000 and the corresponding grade
pay being Rs.10,000/- per month his minimum guaranteed
pension would be 50 per cent of Rs.37400/- + Rs.10,000
that is Rs.23,700/-.
(3) The entitlement of pension is worked out in terms
of sub-rules (1) and (2) above shall further be reduced
pro-rata in all cases, where the pensioner had less than
the minimum service required for full pension as per rules
as applicable on 1st January, 2006 and in no case, it will
be less than Rs.3500/- per month.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid Rules, pay scale was revised and the
teachers working in the Government Colleges were receiving the
revised pension. While so, the Higher Education Commissioner,
Haryana, sent a communication dated 07.09.2010 to the banks,
stating that the revised pension will be payable only to those,
1742 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

who were in service as on 01.01.2006 and not to those who had
retired prior to 01.01.2006 and accordingly, ordered to reduce the
pension and recover the excess payment made. The said order
was challenged in CWP No.19266 of 2010 and connected cases,
titled as Satyapal Yadav v. State of Haryana and others. By order
dated 25.07.2012, the said civil writ petitions came to be allowed,
by setting aside the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Higher
Education Commissioner, Haryana, after having held by the learned
Single Judge that the petitioners therein had completed 3 years of
service in the pre-revised scale of Rs.12000 – 18300 prior to their
retirement, i.e., before 01.01.2006, and hence, they are entitled to
the fixation of pension by placing them in the minimum pay band of
Rs.37400 – 67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- or revision of their pension /
family pension with effect from 01.01.2006. The appeals6 preferred by
the State before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana as well as this Court, ended in dismissal. Since the order
dated 25.07.2012 passed in CWP.No.19266 of 2010 and connected
cases, attained finality, the Haryana Government complied with the
same, by order dated 07.11.2014.
9. In the meanwhile, the appellants approached the respondent
authorities seeking pension in the corresponding scale of Rs.37400-
67000 + AGP Rs.9000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 on par with the
employees/teachers of the Government Colleges in Haryana, which
was rejected on the ground that such benefit was granted only to
the teachers working in the Government colleges and not for the
teachers working in Government Aided Colleges. Challenging the
said rejection, CWP.No.8988 of 2015 etc. cases were filed. During
the pendency of the same, the State accepted the claim of the
appellants and hence, the writ petitions came to be dismissed as
withdrawn on 30.11.2016. Seeking to review the order in respect of
grant of interest on delayed payment of pension, the State preferred
the Review application, which was dismissed. However, the Letter
Patent Appeals7 filed by the State were allowed by the High Court,
by observing that the appellants were fence-sitters and were seeking

6 LPA No.1955 of 2012 was dismissed on 14.01.2013 and SLP (C) No.26907 of 2013 was dismissed on
10.07.2014
7 LPA Nos.2396 of 2017 etc. cases against the order dated 30.11.2016 in CWP No.8988 of 2015 and
connected cases
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1743

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

the benefits on the strength of the original litigation, which others had
successfully contested upto Apex Court and therefore, they cannot
be placed at a better footing than the original litigants, who never
got interest. The said order of the High Court is questioned in these
appeals by special leave.
10. The common submission made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in all the appeals is that by the order impugned
herein, the appellants have been illegally and arbitrarily denied
interest on the belated payment of revised pension w.e.f 01.01.2006,
by observing that they were fence-sitters and hence cannot be
placed at a better pedestal than the original litigants, who had
successfully contested and won the case and were not granted
interest. According to the learned counsel, the said observation of
the High Court is in complete disregard to the fact that the original
litigants referred to in the order impugned herein, were Lecturers/
Librarians in the Government Colleges, who had started getting the
revised pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and from whom recovery was
initiated by the respondent authorities on the premise that they
were made excess payment and therefore, the issue of interest
on delayed payment of pension did not arise therein. It is further
elaborated that the appellants who had retired from Government
Aided Private Colleges prior to 01.01.2006 were claiming parity
with the pension allowed and paid to the Lecturers of Government
Colleges and hence, by no stretch of imagination they could be
termed as fence sitters; and by payment of interest on the delayed
payment of pension, it cannot be said that they will be placed at a
better footing than the original litigants, since the original litigants
continued to get the revised pension, whereas in the case of the
appellants, even the revised pension was not paid to them until the
year 2017-2018, despite the passing of the orders dated 30.11.2016
by the learned Single Judge.
11. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that denial of grant of interest to the appellants is contrary to the stand
taken by the State in the writ proceedings, in which, the Learned
Single Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016 on the basis of
the undertaking given by the State Counsel that the revised pension
is allowed to the appellants, who had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and
the Government shall pay interest on the delayed payment. Thus, it
1744 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

is urged that in terms of the orders dated 30.11.2016 passed in CWP
No.8988 of 2015 etc. cases, the appellants were entitled to revised
pension along with interest on the delayed payment.
12. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that
in the Contempt Petition bearing COCP No.2846 of 2017 in CWP
No. 8988 of 2015, titled as Banarsi Dass and Ors. v. Jyoti Arora
and another, an affidavit was filed by Mrs. Jyoti Arora, Additional
Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Higher Education
Department, Chandigarh, on 01.05.2018 stating inter alia that the writ
petitioners therein are entitled to interest from the date of issuance
of the Policy dated 12.10.2010 by the Principal Secretary, Higher
Education, Government of Haryana, regarding revision of pension/
family pension of the retirees of Non-Government Affiliated Aided
Colleges in the State; and accordingly, interest at 9% was calculated
w.e.f. 12.10.2010. However, on 22.10.2018, an additional affidavit
dated 22.10.2018 was filed by the said Mrs. Jyoti Arora, stating that
the writ petitioners therein are not entitled to any interest. Thus, the
respondent authorities have taken different stand at every stage of
the proceedings, thereby depriving the appellants from getting their
legitimate claim of interest on the delayed payment. Without properly
appreciating the same, the High Court erred in allowing the State’s
appeals by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in
respect of grant of interest on the delayed payment to the appellants
and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.
13. Opposing the claim of the appellants, the learned counsel for the
State / respondent(s) made the following submissions: (i) Rule
6 of the Rules, 2009 specifically deals with the case of Retired
Government employees and there is no provision in the Rules, 2009
to award interest for any belated payment; (ii) Earlier and present
litigations only pertain to grant of revised pension to the Government
College Lecturers and Private Aided College Lecturers, both on the
basis of 2009 Rules; (iii) The pay scale revisions are retrospective
in nature and are without interest; (iv) interest cannot be offered,
based on equitable considerations;8 and (v) Concessions made by
a Government counsel cannot be granted, unless there are written

8 Union of India and Others v. Dr. J K Goel (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 161
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1745

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

instructions from a responsible officer.9 Thus, the learned counsel
submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the High Court correctly denied the grant of interest on the delayed
payment, which does not call for any interference by this court.
14. As a riposte, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the decisions relied on the side of the State are not applicable to
the facts of the present case, wherein the case was not contested
on merits and based on the statement made by the State in the writ
proceedings, the learned Single Judge passed the orders dated
30.11.2016 relating to grant of interest on the delayed payment. It
is also submitted that on behalf of the State, one Assistant by name
Preet Singh was present in the Court and after obtaining instructions
from him, the State counsel made the statement before the learned
Single Judge that the Government shall pay interest on the delayed
payment. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to this Court that
the State may be directed to grant interest at the rate of 9% from
01.01.2006 or at least from the date on which the Government
approved the grant of revised pension to the retired teachers of the
Government Aided Private Colleges.
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel and learned AAG appearing for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
16. Concededly, the appellants were paid the arrears of revised pension
w.e.f. 01.01.2006, on par with the employees / Lecturers of the
Government Colleges, during 2017-2018. Claiming interest on such
payment, which was originally granted by the learned Single Judge
and was subsequently, denied by the High Court, the appellants
are before us.
17. As we have already stated, in terms of the order dated 25.07.2012,
which attained finality on 10.07.2014, the retired employees /
Lecturers of the Government Colleges were given revised pension
with effect from 01.01.2006, on 07.11.2014. However, they were not
granted any interest for the payment of arrears of pension due to
them. Having compared with them, the appellants sought revised
pension, by filing CWP No.8988 of 2015 and connected cases.

9 Periyar & Pareekannai Rubber Ltd v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195
1746 [2024] 10 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

During the writ proceedings, the State accepted the claim of the
appellants and paid the arrears of revised pension with effect from
01.01.2006. Therefore, since the appellants were claiming parity with
the employees / Lecturers of the Government colleges, they should
not be entitled to any payment of interest.
18. Apparently, the entire case of the appellants rests on the factum
recorded by the learned Single Judge in his orders dated 30.11.2016
to the effect that the Assistant, Preet Singh gave oral instructions to
the State counsel that interest will be given by the Government on
delayed payment of revised pension. However, it is interesting to
note that there was no written instruction furnished by the State; the
appellants did not argue the matter on merits; and the learned Single
Judge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016, only on the concessions
made on behalf of the State. In such circumstances, the claim of the
appellants seeking interest, has no legs to stand.
19. It is also required to be pointed out that the revised structure of pay
of teachers and equivalent teachers in Universities and Colleges
in Haryana, was issued by the Government of Haryana, Finance
Department, on 27.08.2009, which was subsequently clarified on
02.09.2009. On the basis of the same, the employees / teachers
working in the Government colleges received the revised pay. In
the meanwhile, the Rules, 2009 relating to all pensioners / family
pensioners, who were drawing their pension/ family pension or
who were eligible / entitled to pension / family pension as on
01.01.2006, were notified on 17.04.2009, and they were deemed
to have come into force with effect from 01.01.2006. As per Rule 6
of the Rules, 2009, and the subsequent clarification issued by the
Higher Education Commissioner, Haryana, the person, who had
completed 3 years of service in the pre-revised scale of pay and/
or the corresponding pay scale applicable prior to 01.01.1996, shall
be placed in the minimum of the pay band of Rs.37400 – 67000
+ AGP of Rs.9000/- for revision of pension / family pension, with
effect from 01.01.2006. Pursuant to the same, the retired employees
/ Lecturers of the Government colleges started litigation in the year
2010, which attained finality in the year 2014 and consequently,
they were paid the arrears of revised pension on 07.11.2014. Only
thereafter, the appellants initiated the writ proceedings in the year
2015. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the appellants waited till
the rights of the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1747

K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Colleges, were crystalised and thereafter, made representation to
the respondent authorities and hence, they are not entitled to get
any interest, by treating them as fence-sitters. Though there may
be some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State
in furnishing instructions about the case, to the Court, however
that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust
enrichment.
20. In view of the above stated reasons, we do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the common judgment passed by the High Court, setting
aside the orders of the learned Single Judge qua grant of interest
on the belated payment of pension to the appellants.
21. Therefore, all the Appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly
dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
22. Before parting, we wish to observe that each party should present
truthful and accurate information to the court to facilitate fair adjudication.
Such information should be provided in the form of writing. Relying
on the oral instructions may lead to factual errors, misunderstanding /
misrepresentations, etc., ultimately compromising the integrity of the
judicial process. Misleading representations not only affect the parties
involved, but also erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole.
The Court should also pass orders only based on the written instructions,
so as to enable it to fix the liability on the correct official(s), responsible
for any such wrongful representations / instructions. Therefore, it is
imperative that the official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to
represent the Government authorities should equip with proper written
instructions from the competent authority(ies). Needless to state that if
any misrepresentation is made on the part of the parties, in particular,
Government authorities, the court should not shy away from it, rather
act sternly by mulcting with costs on the official(s) who make the same.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)