- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 79820 OF 2013 (S-R) BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. SHANKRAPPA HONGALAD , AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: RETD. SUPERINTENDENT K.U.D., R/O: PRABHUSHANKAR, MANJUNATH COLONY, 10TH CROSS, SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE. 3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA UNVIERSITY, DHARWAD. 4. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNVIERSITY, DHARWAD. 5. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA UNVIERSITY, DHARWAD. 6. THE FINANCE OFFICER KARNATAKA UNVIERSITY, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT NO. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 BEARING NO. PÀ««/¸ÉÆD¹«/²PÉëÃvÀgÀ/4/2013/6033 DATED 05.03.2013 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - H WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.18.09.2012, DATED 27.12.2012 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- D AND F IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WITHIN SOME TIME BOUND PERIOD AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking following prayer: a. “A Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement no. bearing no. PÀ««/¸ÉÆD¹«/²PÉëÃvÀgÀ /4/2013/6033 dated 05.03.2013 by the respondent no.4 produced as Annexure – H. b. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the representation dated 18.09.2012, dated 27.12.2012 produced as Annexure- D and F in accordance with law with some time bound period. c. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and eqtuity.” 2. Heard Sri Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High * Corrected vide chamber order dated 02.12.2025. Sd/- MNPJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri Ramachandra Mali, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6. 3. The brief facts germane for consideration are as follows: 4. The petitioner was an employee of the 4th respondent – Karnataka University. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2012. Upon his retirement, he became entitled to receive his terminal benefits. However, the said benefits were not released in their entirety on the ground that certain departmental enquiries were pending against him. The enquiry pertained to an alleged short remittance of Rs.520/- during his service. This was the reason assigned for withholding the terminal benefits. 5. Subsequently, the terminal benefits were released to the petitioner about six months after his retirement. The timeline of events from the date of retirement till the final release of benefits is as follows: (i) The petitioner retired on 29.02.2012. (ii) Provisional pension was fixed at Rs.9,750/- on 17.07.2012. (iii) The petitioner was exonerated in the departmental enquiry on 18.09.2012. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 (iv) Full and final settlement of pension and other service benefits was made on 18.01.2013, when the final pension was fixed at Rs.19,500/-. 6. The terminal benefits were thus not released immediately upon retirement. Though the petitioner was exonerated on 18.09.2012, only partial terminal benefits were released earlier, and the complete settlement was effected only on 18.01.2013. 7. Two dates are of significance – the date of retirement, i.e., 29.02.2012, and the date of exoneration, i.e., 18.09.2012. Therefore, the terminal benefits ought to have been settled by 18.09.2012 at the latest. The petitioner, immediately after his exoneration, submitted a representation seeking release of his terminal benefits and fixation of pension. However, the benefits were released only in January 2013. 8. Viewed from any angle, there has been a delay of nearly six months in the settlement of the petitioner’s terminal benefits. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to interest for the delayed release of his terminal benefits. 9. It is trite that, irrespective of whether there is any specific provision in the statute, government order, or circular, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 delayed release of terminal benefits would entail payment of interest to the concerned employee. 10. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.D. Tewari (D) Thr. L.Rs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.1, has held in paragraphs 3 to 8 as follows: “3. The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. 4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 25-8-2010 [ CWP No. 1048 of 2010, decided on 25-8-2010 (P&H)] , after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the judgments of this Court particularly, in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [(1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] , wherein this Court reiterated its earlier view holding that: (SCC pp. 429-30, para 1) “1. [the] pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment [to the employees].” 1 (2014) 8 SCC 894 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 5. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good insofar as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned Single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the appeal and the letters patent appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds. 6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred [(1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent. 7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in hand. 8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and Another2, has held in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 as follows: “5. We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time-schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remind the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the Rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/instructions 2 (1999) 3 SCC 438 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. 6. The case before us is a clear example of departmental delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30-4- 1993 and it was only after 12-2-1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997- 98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30-3-1993 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the Department inasmuch as the Rules and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner's retirement. 7. Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs 1 lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from today.” 12. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Albert Mohanraj v. State of Karnataka and Others3, has held in paragraphs 6 to 9 as follows: “6. Retirement benefits are not paid as a bounty to an employee who honourably retires from service. It is for the establishment, in such a case, to ensure that the pension papers of the employee is processed well in advance, in the least, a year ahead, and on the day next, on retirement, make available the benefits. It is undesirable for the establishment to keep the employee away from the benefits and require him or her to make representations or 3 ILR 2009 Kar 4555 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 approach Courts of law for directions, Servants of the State, Statutory authorities, local bodies, statutory Corporations etc. need to become more sensitive to the issue and address themselves to formulating a methodology, in this regard. The failure to pay the retirement benefits, within a reasonable time, which in my opinion is the day immediately after retirement, would cause, untold of hardship, inconvenience and harassment as also a serious health hazard. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Sri Sharfuddin, Since Dead by Lrs. Faimunnisa Begum and Others v. The Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director [AIR 2008 Kar 1629.] directed payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the amount deducted from out of the pensionary benefits. 8. The question is who should pay the amount determined by the Court for the harassment and agony, is it the statutory authority BBMP or should it be realised from those who were responsible for it? Although, the respondent BBMP when directed by order dated 26.9.2008 in W.P.No. 1753/2008 came to know of its mistake took action by making payment of pensionary benefits on 14.5.2009, this in the circumstances, supra, by no stretch of imagination is compensation for the loss suffered by the petitioner. For such acts and omissions of the officers of BBMP, the loss suffered has to be made good by the authority or its officers. In the facts of this case, there being no justification to deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner, the sufferings undergone by the petitioner is attributable to the malafide, oppressive and capricious act of the officers of the BBMP. In that view of the matter, the liability changes from the authority to the officers concerned. The award of interest at 9% p.a. on the pensionary benefits should not be construed as punitive, but an exception is to be made due to the oppresive, arbitrary and unconstitutional action by officers of the BBMP. 9. Misfeasance in public office as explained by Wade in his book on Administrative Law, extracted by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243.] which reads thus; “Even where there is no ministerial duty as above, and even where no recognised tort such as trespass, nuisance, or negligence is committed, public authorities or officers may be liable in damages for malacious, deliberate or injurious wrong- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 doing. This is thus a tort which has been called misfeasance in public office, and which includes malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury.” (p.777).” 13. In light of the unequivocal enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner becomes entitled to interest on the delayed payment of terminal benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to succeed, with a direction as under: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 05.03.*2013 is hereby quashed. iii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of terminal benefits for the period from 29.02.2012 (date of superannuation) till 18.01.2013 (date of actual payment). iv. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within an outer limit of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. v. In the event of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the enhanced rate of 18% per annum from the date the payment fell due till the date of actual payment. * Corrected vide chamber order dated 02.12.2025. Sd/- MNPJ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13860 WP No. 79820 of 2013 Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66