S.K DUAversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR

    396        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A the rate of 18% for the delayed payment, but the                   -;.....
  representations were rejected. He file writ petition claiming
  the same, but it was dismissed by High Court summarily.
  Hence, the present appeal.
          Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter
B to High Court, the Court

        HELD: 1. In the circumstances of the case, the                }-
  grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-
                                                                               •    ~
  founded that he would be entitled to interest on such                            ......
c benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field,
  the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on
  such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions,
  Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the
  appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But
  even in absence of Statutory Rules, Administrative
D
  Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest
  under Part Ill of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19
  and 21 of the Constitution. Retiral benefits are not in the         )
  nature of 'bounty'. In that view of the matter, the High
  Court was not right in dismissing the petition in /imine
E even without issuing notice to the respondents. The writ
  petition OUs;Jht to have been admitted by, issuing Rule nisi
  and ought to have been decided on merits. [Paras 11 and
  12] [401-E, F, G; 402-A, B]

F      2. The High Court had not entertained the petition
  and it was summarily dismissed. The High Court thus was
  not having the affidavit on behalf of the respondent
                                                                     .. •· ..
                                                                                    t-
  Authorities. In the affidavit filed by the State-Authorities
  in this Court, the stand taken by Government is that
  'vigilance enquiries' are 'still pending' against the
G
  appellant. The said affidavit is of January, 2005. In the
  affidavit in rejoinder, the writ-petitioner has stated that "the
  alleged pendency of the 'vigilance enquiry' if any is
  insignificant". The Court is also not aware as to what has
  happened thereafter though considerable period has
H
                    S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                 397
                                 [THAKKER, J.]

              elapsed. In view of all these facts, it would be in the interest A
              of both the parties that the matter is remitted to the High
              Court, rather than deciding the same by this Court. In view
              of the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen and the
              prayer relates to interest on retiral dues paid to him after
              four years, High Court is requested to give priority to the B
              case and decide it finally expeditiously. [Para 14] [402-E,
        ~     F, G, H; 403-A]
  ...
                   CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 184
              of 2008.
                                                                                c
                   From the Judgment I Order dated 7.7.2005 of the High
              Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
              10025/2005.
                    M.N. Krishnamani, S. Pani and Ansar Ahmed Chaudhary
              for the Appellant.                                        D
                  Manjit Singh, A.A.G. (Haryana), T.V. George for the
        _.(
              Respondents.
                   The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                E
                   C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
                    2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the
              High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on July 7, 2005
              in Writ Petition (C) No. 10025 of 2005. By the impugned order,
...           the High Court dismissed the petition in /imine relegating the    F
         +    appellant - writ petitioner to avail a remedy by approaching a
              Civil Court.
                    3. Facts in brief are that the appellant was working as an
              Engineer-in-Chief in the Department of Irrigation, Haryana.
              According to him, he joined the service in Irrigation Department G
              of the erstwhile State of Punjab in August, 1961 and was
              allocated to the Department of Irrigation and Power in the State
              of Haryana. He was promoted as Engineer-in-Chief on May 31,
              1996 and worked in that capacity till he attained the age of
              superannuation in June, 1998. The appellant had an H
    398          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [200811 S.C.R.


A unblemished record of service for 37 years. During the course
  of his duties as Head of the Department, he submitted reports
  in or about April-May, 1998 to the· Government highlighting
  certain irregularities and mal-practices sai.d to have been
  committed by Mr. S.Y. Quraishi, the then Secretary, Irrigation &
B Power and requested the Government to make enquiry through
  Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). According to the appellant,
  in pursuance of the complaint made by him, the Government              t-
  removed Mr. Quraishi as Secretary, Irrigation allowing him to               ~
  work only as Secretary, Department of Power.
C        4. The appellant has alleged that, as a measure of
  vendetta, Mr. Quraishi organized to send the appellant on
  deputation on May 15, 1998 to a lower and unimportant specially
  created post of Engineer-in-Chief, Command Area
  Development Agency by upgrading it just few weeks before his
D retirement. In addition to the said action, the appellant was
  served with three charge-sheets/ show cause notices in June,
  1998, few days before his retirement. The appellant, however,          )-
  retired on June 30, 1998 on reaching the age of superannuation.
  The appellant was paid provisional pension, but other retiral
E benefits were not given to him which included Commuted Value
  of Pension, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, etc. totaling to about
  Rs. 12 lakhs. They were withheld till finalization of disciplinary
  proceedings. The appellant submitted replies to the charge-
  sheets/ show cause notices, inter alia, denying allegations and
F asserting that they were uncalled for and were issued with ma/a
  fide intention and oblique motive. He further submitted that he       -+
  had acted in public interest in salvaging damage likely to be
  caused to public exchequer. The replies submitted by the
  appellant were accepted by the authorities and the appellant
G was exonerated of all the charges. All retiral benefits were
  thereafter given to him between June 11 and July 18, 2002. Thus,
  according to the appellant though he retired in June, 1998, retiral
  benefits to which he was otherwise entitled, were given to him
  after four years of his superannuation.
H         5. The appellant has stated that, in the aforesaid
                     S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                     399
                                  [THAKKER, J.]
    ..,,.,~
              circumstances, he was entitled to interest on the amount which A
              had been withheld by the respondents and paid to him after
              considerable delay. He, therefore, made several
              representations. He also issued legal notice on June 3, 2005
              claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed
              payment. He had invited the attention of the Government to B
              Administrative Instructions issued by the Government under
     ~.
        '     which an employee is entitled to claim interest. Even otherwise,
.             the action of non-payment of interest was arbitrary, unreasonable
              and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. There
              was, however, no reply whatsoever from the Gover(lment. The           c
              appellant as a senior citizen of 65 years of age then approached
              the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by filing a writ petition under
              Article 226 of the Constitution. But the High Court summarily
              dismissed the writ petition without even issuing notice to the
              respondents. The appellant has challenged the said order in
                                                                                 D
              the present appeal.

    -(
                    6. On October 28, 2005, notice was issued by this Court.
              Affidavits and further affidavits were filed thereafter and the
              Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing.
              Accordingly, the matter has been placed before us for final E
              disposal.
                   7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
                    8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that
              the High Court was totally unjustified in dismissing the writ petition F
       f-     in limine and the said order is liable to be set aside. He
              submitted that no questions of fact, much less, disputed
              questions of fact were involved in the petition and the High Court
              was wrong in summarily dismissing it. It is well settled law,
              submitted the counsel, that retiral benefits are not in the nature
                                                                                     G
              of bounty and an employee is entitled as of right to get those
              benefits immediately after superannuation unless they are
              withdrawn or withheld as a matter of punishment. According to
              the appellant, he had always acted in the interest of the
              Government and saved public exchequer by inviting the attention
                                                                                     H
    400          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A to mal-practices committed by high ranking officers. As a                ~-
  measure of revenge against the appellant, charge-sheets were
  issued, but after considering the explanation submitted by the
  appellant, all proceedings against him were dropped. In view of
  exoneration of the appellant, the Government ought to have.paid
B interest on retiral benefits which were given to him after long
  time. As per the Guidelines and Administrative Instructions
  issued by the Government, the appellant was entitled to such             .J..
  benefit with interest. The High Court ought to have allowed the                 "'
  writ petition of the appellant and ought to have awarded those
c benefits. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves
  to be allowed by directing the respondents to pay interest on
  the retiral dues payable to the appellant which were·actually paid
  to him after considerable delay.

         9. An affidavit in reply is filed by Special Secretary,
D Government of Haryana, Irrigation Department. In the counter
  affidavit which was filed in January, 2005, the deponent has
  stated that the appellant was paid all his retiral dues as soon as
  he was exonerated of the charges levelled against him. The
  deponent referred to the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and
E Appeal) Rules, 1987 relating to benefits to which an employee
  is entitled and contended that after the charge-sheets were finally
  dropped, the appellant was paid all retiral benefits within three
  months from the date of dropping of the charge-sheets. But it
  was further stated that certain vigilance enquiries are 'still
F pending' against the appellant. In the circumstances, according
  to the deponent, the appellant was not entitled to interest and          ..
  the action taken by the Government could not be said to be
  illegal or otherwise unreasonable. A prayer was, therefore, made
  to dismiss the appeal.
G         10. In rejoinder affidavit, the appellant reiterated what he
    had pleaded in the petition for leave to appeal and submitted
    that the stand taken by the Government in counter-affidavit is
    misconceived and he is entitled to the relief prayed in the petition
    before the High Court and in the present appeal.
                    S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                       401
                                 [THAKKER, J.]

    .J\I..         11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in           A
             our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in
             dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired
             from service on June 30, 1998. It is also un-disputed that at the
             time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed
             more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously,                B
             therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with
      ~
             law. True it is that certain charge-sheets/ show cause notices
             were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to
t
             show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated
             against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those    c
             actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against
             whom serious allegations of mal-practices and mis-conduct had
             been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr.
             Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr.
             Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.          D
             Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the
             appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact
      ~       remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral
             benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be
             denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four
                                                                                      E
             years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the.view that
             the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well-founded
             that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are
             Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim
             payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are
             Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for          F
        +    the purpose, the appellant may claim benef:t of interest on that
             basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative
             Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under
             Part 111 of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
             Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the              G
             appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of 'bounty' is,
             in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support
             thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the
             High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine
             even without issuing notice to the respondents.                          H
    402          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A        12. To us, the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant
  that the High Court ought to have entered into the merits of the
  matter which is based on documentary evidence is well-taken.
  In our considered view, the writ petition ought to have been
  admitted by issuing Rule nisi and ought to have been decided
B on merits. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition by a
  cryptic order which reads thus:
          "The petitioner seeks only payment of interest on the           }-
          delayed payment of retiral benefits. We, however, relegate           ~


          the petitioner to avail of his remedies before the Civil
c         Court, if so advised.
          Dismissed with the above observations."
         13. The order passed by the High Court, therefore, must
    be quashed and set aside.
D
         14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
  an appropriate direction may be issued to the Government to
  pay interest to the appellant who had retired on June 30, 1998
  and about a decade has passed even thereafter. He, therefore,
  submitted that the matter may be finally concluded by this Court
E by passing appropriate orders. We would have certainly
  considered this aspect and prayer made by the appellant but
  for the fact that the High Court had not entertained the petition
  and it was summarily dismissed. The High Court1hus was not
  having the affidavit on behalf of the respondent Authorities. In
F the affidavit filed by the State-Authorities in this Court, the stand
  taken by Government is that 'vigilance enquiries' are 'still            +
  pending' against the appellant. The said affidavit is of January,
  2005. 111 the affidavit in rejoinder, the writ-petitioner has stated
  that "the alleged pendency of the 'vigilance enquiry' if any is
G insignificant". We are also not aware as to what has happened
  thereafter though considerable period has elapsed. In view of
  all these facts, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of both
  the parties that we may remit the matter to the High Court so as
  to enable the High Court to consider the matter on merits and
H pa~s an appropriate order in accordance with law. We are
                      S.K. DUA v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.                   403
                                   [THAKKER, J.]
    __.,,4
             mindful that the appellant is a senior citizen and the prayer relates A
             to interest on retiral dues paid t~him after four years. Keeping
             in view the totality of facts and circumstances, we request the
             High Court to give priority to the case and decide it finally as
             expeditiously as possible, preferably before June 30, 2008.
                   15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. B
             The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter
     1
             is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance
•
             with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however,
             there shall be no order as to costs.
                                                                                  c
                    16. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we
             may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the
             merits of the matter, one way or the other. As and when the writ
             petition will be placed before the High Court, it will be decided
             on its own merits without being influenced by any observations
                                                                               D
             made by us hereinabove.
    ~·            Order accordingly.
             K.K.T.                                    Appeal partly allowed.