(1) wp6970-07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6970 OF 2007 Dr. Sudhakar Govindrao Pohnerkar and others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.N. Sabnis, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader for the Respondent-State. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No. 4. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for the respondent No. 7. Smt. R.R. Mane, advocate for the respondent No. 6. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 11th AUGUST, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed by the Lecturers working in various colleges which are impleaded as respondents to the petition. They contend that they have not been awarded the benefit of three increments from 1st January, 1986. They also contend that they are entitled to payment of arrears alongwith interest upon fixing their pay in the Pay (2) wp6970-07 Scale of ` 3700/- to ` 5700/-. 2. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners have been paid the amounts claimed by them in the writ petition on various dates. They have been paid interest on the arrears paid to them from the date of the Government Resolution dated 1st January, 1986 upto their respective dates of retirement. 3. It is now contended that the petitioners would be entitled to interest till the date they were actually paid the amount of arrears which was after the date of their retirement. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of "S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another" AIR 2008 S.C. 1077, in support of his submission that the interest must be paid to these employees till the realisation of the arrears. 5. The Supreme Court was concerned with the retiral benefits which were paid to the retiree four years after the date of his retirement. The interest (3) wp6970-07 had been claimed by the retiree. Considering the Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that interest should be paid to such an employee. The relevant part of the judgement regarding payment of interest is as follows: "But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four 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 the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of `bounty' (4) wp6970-07 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." 6. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioners would certainly be entitled to interest on arrears till they were actually paid the arrears and not merely till their respective dates of retirement. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay the interest to the petitioners on the arrears till they were actually paid the arrears, at the same rate as the interest paid to them till they retired from service. The amount shall be paid to the petitioners within four months from today. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] npj/wp6970-07