2025:JHHC:15681 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S) No. 1868 of 2025 ---- Harendra Prasad Sinha, aged about 74 years, son of Braj Nandan Prasad, resident of: C/103, Harihar Estate, Kusum Vihar, Morabadi, P.O. Morabadi, P.S.-Bariatu, District- Ranchi ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 2. Secretary, Tourism, Arts, Culture, Arts & Youth Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand, MDI Building, P.O & P.S- Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3. Director (Culture), Government of Jharkhand, M D I Building, P.O & P.S-Dhurwa, District Ranchi 4. Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi ...Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Abhijit Kumar, Advocates For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II -- 02/11.06.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner for payment of interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement i.e., 31.10.2011 till the date of respective payments of retiral benefits under different heads. 3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, Ld. Counsel submits that the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director (Culture) under the 2nd Respondent and he was superannuated on 31.10.2011. After retirement, the Petitioner has been paid G.P.F and insurance amount, but no interest on the aforesaid amount of G.P.F and Insurance was paid to the Petitioner even after repeated representations. As a matter of fact, the details of payment made to the Petitioner has been mentioned in paragraph 14 of the writ application; wherein it has been categorically 2025:JHHC:15681 2 provided the particulars of payment along with delay from the date of retirement; as such, the concerned respondent may be directed to look into the matter and take an appropriate decision with regards to payment of interest on the retiral dues. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II representing the State Respondents relying upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1 to 3 submits that the Petitioner retired in the year 2011 and his service was regularised in the year 2015 and thereafter process of payment of retiral dues has been initiated; as such, there is no delay on behalf of respondent no 1 to 3. He further submits that from the order dated 24.06.2016 the compliance was to be done at the end of Accountant General (Respondent No.4) regarding payment of retiral dues and since no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, he is not in a position to say due to what reason delay has been caused in payment of retiral dues. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the State Respondents that the regularisation of the Petitioner was done in the year 2015 and there is no latches on the part of the State Respondents; is misconceived, inasmuch as, the Petitioner was at no fault for getting regularised at such later date; rather it was the State Respondents who were duty bound to regularise the Petitioner in time and the same has been done only in compliance of the order dated 29.06.2015 passed in W.P(S) no. 2586 of 2008. 6. It is now well settled law that the right of a retired employee to get his retiral dues on the date of attaining superannuation is a valuable right which accrues in his favour on the date of his attaining superannuation. Further, gratuity and pension are no more considered to be 2025:JHHC:15681 3 a bounty to be handed out by the State at its whim. An employee has a statutory right to receive gratuity and pension upon retirement. If payment of such gratuity and pension is delayed; the retired employee is surely entitled to get some interest for such delayed payment. In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the State to disburse the gratuity and pension amount on the due date. If it has failed to do so and has released such amount after unexplained delay, it is obliged to pay interest to the retired employee. Pension and gratuity are welfare provisions aimed at maintaining the life of a retired employee and his/her dependents. This is compensatory in nature. 7. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition, the employer is liable to pay interest to the writ petitioner on the superannuation benefits on and from the due date till the date of actual payment. In this regard, reference may be made to the case of State of A.P. v. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswar 1 , provided the delay caused was not attributable to the Petitioner. 8. The Petitioner in paragraph 14 of the writ application has categorically provided the particulars of payment along with delay from the date of retirement. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the 2nd Respondent to take a decision in the matter after verification of the records with regard payment of interest on retiral dues @ 6 per annum from the date it was payable till the date of actual payment, provided the delay caused was not attributable to the Petitioner. It is made clear that the order regarding payment of interest shall be taken by the 2nd Respondent within a period of 16 weeks from the date of 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 237 2025:JHHC:15681 4 receipt/production of a copy of this order. The consequential benefits shall be extended to the Petitioner within a further period of eight weeks. 9. Needless to say, that the 2nd Respondent would be at liberty to find out as to who was responsible for delay in payment of retiral dues and further to take appropriate action against the concerned official/s, if so advised. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A., if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk