LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri G. S. Bapna for the appellant. The respondent herein filed the writ petition with the following main prayers: (i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to release the amount of Rs. 21876/- illegally withheld by them towards interest on principal amount of C. P. F. with all consequential benefits and interest. (ii) In the alternative by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to pay interest on the arrears of pension payable to petitioner @ 12% per Annum as shown in Annex. "
(2.) THE short facts which compel the respondent to file the writ petition are as that the Rajasthan Khadi Gramodyog Board (for short `the Board') introduced a scheme of Contributory Provident Fund in respect of employees in which the employee as well as the employer contributed as per the scheme. THE State Government introduced the pension scheme for the first time vide order dated 11. 9. 1989. It was made clear in the scheme that the aforesaid scheme will be applicable in respect of those employees who retired on or after 1. 9. 88. THE respondent Ram Pal Karadia retired from service on 30. 1. 1988 and as such, he was not covered by the aforesaid pension scheme formulated by the State Government and the benefits under the pension scheme were not given to him and benefits under the C. P. F. Scheme were given to him in which the share of the employer was to the extent of Rs. 29, 931 which was paid to him at the time of retirement by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. THE respondent and others filed writ petition before this Court claiming that the retirement benefits should be given to those employees who retired on or after 28. 1. 83. THE writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 9. 8. 1991. THE operative portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- "in the result, the writ petitions are allowed. It is declared that fixation of date 1. 9. 1988 as the date of application of the pension scheme is arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is declared that the pension scheme should be treated as applicable to all employees who retired on or before 28. 1. 1983 when the Board has sanctioned the sending of pension scheme to the Government. THE petitioners are entitled to be governed by the pension scheme. Respondents are accordingly directed to issue necessary orders for payment of pension to the petitioners. Similarly situated persons may be given option to accept pension scheme within a period of four months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. " In compliance of the judgment of this Court, the Board had issued an order on 2. 11. 1992 giving effect to the judgment of the this Court and it was ordered that the employees who retired after 28. 1. 1983 should also be given the benefit in place of CPF Scheme. In pursuance to the judgment of this Court, the respondent No. 1 gave his option for pension scheme. Keeping in view of the directions of the State Government contained in its order dated 2. 11. 1992 giving benefit of the Pension Scheme to the employees who retired on or after 28. 1. 1983 including the respondent No. 1. Since the respondent No. 1 had received the employer's contribution of Rs. 29,931/- in 1988 he was required to refund the same along with interest @ 12% which was calculated to be Rs. 21, 876/ -. The amount which was payable to the respondent No. 1 pursuant to the judgment of this Court and the order of the State Government, as arrears of pension was calculated to Rs. 70, 924/ -. The appellant Board deducted Rs. 51, 807/- which was recoverable from the respondent No. 1 and the balance amount was paid to him in the year 1983. The respondent No. 1 filed the present writ petition with the prayers which have been extracted above. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to pay the respondent No. 1 Rs. 21876/ -. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. Mr. G. S. Bapna, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that since no interest has been paid on the pension amount, the same could not be charged in respect of the amount paid to respondent No. 1 towards CPF in the year 1988. It is submitted further that the respondent No. 1 became entitled to receive pension in pursuance to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9. 8. 1991 after which he gave his option and the State Government issued order on 2. 11. 1992 and that the appellant immediately implemented the order in the year 1993 and as such, the respondent was not entitled to receive any interest on the pension amount. It is also further submitted that the appellant had deposited the employer's contribution towards the CPF which was paid to the respondent No. 1 in the year 1988 and pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9. 8. 1991, the respondent No. 1 had opted for pension scheme. He was, therefore, liable to refund the employer's contribution including interest. The amount of Rs. 21, 876/- was the amount of interest on the employer's contribution which was deposited in the CPF Scheme. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition vide order dated 9. 8. 1991 had not issued and direction regarding the payment of interest. The learned Judge simply directed that the benefit of the pension scheme would be applicable to those employees who retired after 28. 1. 1983 on their giving option for pension scheme within a period of four months from the date of judgment. As such, there was no delay on the part of the appellants in making payment of pension and as such, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to receive interest on the pension amount. This submission of the appellant's counsel was not countenanced by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) IN our opinion, the equity demands that if the Board charge interest on the amount of C. P. F. already paid to the respondent No. 1 then he should have been allowed interest on the arrears of pension illegally withheld by the Board. IN fact the respondent No. 1 on 1. 9. 1993 had sent a notice for demand of justice to the Board requesting them either to release the amount of Rs. 21, 876/- withheld by Board on account of interest that the principal of sum of C. P. F. or to pay interest amounting to Rs. 29, 861/- on the amount of arrears of pension illegally withheld by them. However, no reply was received by the respondent. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the writ petition. If the appellant charge interest on the amount of C. P. F. paid to the respondent then equity also demands that the respondent should also be allowed interest on the arrears of pension amount illegally withheld by the appellants. There is no justification at all to charge interest on the amount of C. P. F. paid to the respondent and to deny the same benefit on the amount of arrears of pension withheld by the Board from 1. 2. 1988 to June, 1993. It was the liability of the Board to pay pension to the respondent. The appellant Board has utterly failed in its duty to pay pension to the respondent on account of such illegal act of the Board, the respondent had to approach this Court to seek order for grant of pension and that the respondent's right to get the pension was also upheld by this Court and the Board was directed to pay the pension. This, the pension was not paid to the respondent herein in due time due to wrong committed by the Board which has resulted in accumulation into arrears of pension. The Board, in our opinion, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their on fault. The respondent is entitled to get the interest on arrears of pension from the date it is due up to the date of this payment and the appellant Board is also liable to pay the same. IN is also seen from the averments made in the writ petition that the respondent was not paid 119 months arrear, therefore, he is entitled to get interest on arrears of pension under general law. Though compensation was also claimed, the same was not granted, rightly so, in our opinion. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and therefore, the same is confirmed. The writ-appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed. No costs. .;