HC slams State for 24-year delay: Orders 9 per cent interest on arrears due since 1998

Taking exception to a writ petition that remained pending for 24 years, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an employee cannot be made to suffer financially, mentally, and professionally because of governmental delay. The assertion came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil granted annual nine per cent interest on arrears arising from retrospective promotion.

Allowing the petition filed by Adesh Kumar after just one hearing, Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the petitioner’s rightful claim stood accepted more than two decades ago. But the prolonged pendency and non-release of benefits inflicted “considerable hardship” upon the petitioner. “This court cannot overlook the considerable hardship suffered by the petitioner, who has been compelled to litigate for what was his rightful due more than two decades ago. The petitioner has suffered not only financial loss but also mental distress, stagnation in career progression, and unwarranted denial of dignity in service, merely due to administrative inaction,” the bench observed.

Referring to fairness, equity and good conscience, Justice Moudgil asserted these principles demanded that an “employee should not be made to bear the consequences of the State’s delay, particularly when the authorities themselves admit his claim”.

The petitioner had approached the high court in 2001 seeking quashing of an order dated October 27, 1998, by which his juniors were promoted as ‘Assistant Wasil Baqi Nawis’ without considering his candidature. In reply filed on May 23, 2002, Ambala Deputy Commissioner submitted that the petitioner had been granted promotion retrospectively vide order dated January 9, 2002, with effect from October 27, 1998 — the date on which his junior was promoted.

Justice Moudgil asserted the promotion, however, was only on a notional basis, without extending the consequential monetary benefits. “The stand taken by the respondents is sufficient to infer that the petitioner is legitimately entitled to promotion from the date his junior was promoted, i.e., October 27, 1998. On that date, the respondent-department had implicitly accepted the petitioner’s rightful claim. Nevertheless, the respondents failed to grant him consequential benefits, including increments and the pay scale attached to the post despite the fact that the petitioner has now been formally promoted with retrospective effect,” the bench observed.

Holding that “wheels of justice must now move”, the court directed the State to release arrears accrued for the period between October 27, 1998, and January 9, 2002, within two months, along with nine per cent interest per annum.