IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Regular Second Appeal No.3814 of 2010 (O&M) Mehar Chand … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents 2. Regular Second Appeal No.3287 of 2010 (O&M) Mehar Chand … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents Date of decision: 9th August , 2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaraia, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Appellant, who was facing criminal prosecution, whether is entitled to interest for the delay of payments from the date of retirement or from the date he is acquitted, is the question which this Court has been called upon to answer. The appellant had filed two appeals in this Court, viz. RSA No.3814 of 2010 and RSA No.3287 of 2010 through two different counsel, seeking the same relief. In RSA No.3814 of 2010 a prayer has been made that instead of 6% the appellant be paid 12% interest per annum from the due date, whereas in RSA No.3287 of 2010 the same prayer has been made however, the rate of interest demanded is 18%. Counsel, who had filed RSA No.3287 of 2010, is not present in Court. Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate states that since both the aforesaid 1. Regular Second Appeal No.3814 of 2010 (O&M) and 2. Regular Second Appeal No.3287 of 2010 (O&M) appeals have been filed by the same person seeking same relief, they be decided together. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff was appointed as a JBT teacher on 15th July, 1968. In the month of November, 1999 he was deputed as a Head of the Cluster in Govt. Primary School, Badsui, District Kaithal. He was relieved from the Govt. Primary School, Badsui on 25th November, 1999. In the relieving report, work of the appellant- plaintiff was noticed as not satisfactory. However, Pardeep Kumar, JBT teacher, who had relieved the appellant-plaintiff, made a complaint on 25th November, 1999 that the school record and account books etc. have not been handed over to him. Therefore, a case under Section 420, 409 and 120-B IPC was registered against the appellant-plaintiff on 1st June, 2001. The appellant-plaintiff was arrested and later-on released on bail. He was placed under suspension by respondent-defendant No.3. To cut the long story short, the appellant-plaintiff attained the age of superannuation on 31st August, 2003. After retirement he was paid reduced pension, i.e. 65% of the total amount of pension due to him. In the suit so filed, it was prayed that all the pensionary benefits including commuted pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other payments including arrears of two increments, payment for the suspension period along with interest @ 12% per annum be paid to the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit and held the appellant-plaintiff entitled to all the retiral benefits along with interest @ 6% per annum till realization of the amount. Aggrieved against the same, State of Haryana had filed an appeal and the appellant-plaintiff also filed an appeal. Both the appeals were disposed of vide a common judgment dated 15th March, 2010. The lower appellate Court had modified the decree to the extent that the appellant-plaintiff shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree i.e. 11th June, 2009 till its realization. The Court held that 2 1. Regular Second Appeal No.3814 of 2010 (O&M) and 2. Regular Second Appeal No.3287 of 2010 (O&M) since the appellant-plaintiff was convicted by the Court of trial Magistrate vide its judgment dated 18th October, 2001 and he was acquitted by the appellate Court on 6th May, 2009, therefore, the interest be paid to him from the date of decree. The following findings given by the lower appellate Court are required to be reproduced here: “19. Now coming to the appeal No.54 of 1.8.2009 filed by plaintiff Mehar Chand. Learned trial Court has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. but it is not mentioned from which date it shall be granted to the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it shall be deemed that the interest has been granted w.e.f. date of decree i.e. 11.6.2009 till realization. The plaintiff was earlier convicted by learned trial Magistrate vide judgment of conviction dated 18.10.2009 (sic) and he has been acquitted by the first appellate Court on 6.5.2009. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the granting of interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree is appropriate and no case is made out for enhancement of the interest. As such, appeal filed by the plaintiff Mehar Chand sans merit and the same stands dismissed.” I find that the modification ordered by the lower appellate Court is just and appropriate. Till acquittal was pronounced, all the rights flowing to the appellant-plaintiff were eclipsed. It is the date he attained acquittal of the charges, he became entitled to the benefits which were withheld, therefore, from that date interest shall accrue. The date of acquittal being 6th May, 2009, the Court had awarded interest from the date of decree i.e. 11th June, 2009. Mr. Gupta has urged that the interest should be awarded from the date when the amount became due or from the date of retirement of the appellant-plaintiff which is 31st August, 2003 or from the date of filing of the suit. 3 1. Regular Second Appeal No.3814 of 2010 (O&M) and 2. Regular Second Appeal No.3287 of 2010 (O&M) This contention cannot be upheld. It is not that the respondent-State had withheld the amount deliberately or due to any negligence. The amount was withheld because the conviction of appellant-plaintiff would have resulted into his dismissal from service and he would not have been entitled to any amount. The State Government, under the benevolent provisions had already ordered that the employee will be entitled to reduced pension @ 65% of the total amount of pension. Because of order of the Court, the appellant-plaintiff has been held entitled to retiral benefits. Thus, the amount of retiral benefits has to be paid to the appellant-plaintiff. The date of acquittal and the date of decree has a difference of only one month, therefore, there is no need to modify the order passed by the lower appellate Court. Thus, interest on delayed payment has been rightly awarded from the date of decree. Mr. Gupta has relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Rattan Lal v. Municipal Council, Kharar and others’ 2000(3) SCT 277 wherein, for the delayed payment of retiral benefits, interest @ 12% per annum was awarded. The judgment rendered in year 2000 in Rattan Lal’s case (supra) has no relevance because the rate of interest changes from time to time. At present, awarding of interest @ 6% per annum has been held to be prudent and as per the prevalent market rates. Thus, the question raised is answered against the appellant- plaintiff. Hence, both the present appeals are dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 9, 2011 rps 4