Reliance on oral instructions may lead to factual errors; Parties must furnish accurate information to Court in writing: SC

Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal concerning grant on interest on delayed payment of revised pension to the appellants based on oral instructions, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., observed that each party should present truthful and accurate information to the court to facilitate fair adjudication. Such information should be provided in the form of writing. Relying on the oral instructions may lead to factual errors, misunderstanding / misrepresentations, etc., ultimately compromising the integrity of the judicial process. Misleading representations not only affect the parties involved, but also erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole.

The appellants were working as Lecturers / Principals in the Government Aided Private Colleges in the State of Haryana and they retired from service prior to 01-01-2006. Claiming parity with the Lecturers/Librarians of the Government Colleges in relation to the increase of their pension, based on the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009, the appellants preferred the civil writ petitions for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the orders of the respondent authorities denying revised pension to the appellants as that of the employees / teachers of the Government Colleges in Haryana, and to direct the respondent(s) to grant pension to the appellants in the corresponding scale of Rs.37400 — 67000 + AGP8 Rs.9000/- with effect from 01-01-2006 with interest.

In the course of hearing of the civil writ petitions, the State counsel produced a copy of the letter dated 07.11.2016 sent by the Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, Chandigarh, addressed to the Director Higher Education, Haryana, Panchkula, by which the State had agreed to give revised pension to the retired employees of the Private Aided Colleges and also gave an undertaking to the effect that the State would also pay interest on the delayed payment.

The Single Judge Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil writ petitions as withdrawn and issued a direction to release the arrears of pension to the appellants within a period of three months.

Between 2017 and 2018, the State disbursed the arrears of revised pension to the appellants. However, the State preferred a review of the afore-stated order before the single Judge Bench of the High Court and upon its dismissal, filed an appeal before the Division Bench contending that that payment of interest on the amount of arrears to be paid w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was not justified as the decision to revise the pension in the pay band of Rs. 37400 – 67000 + 9000 AGP was taken and approved by the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, vide order dated 07-10-2016 and therefore, interest on belated payment of pension was payable not from 01-01-2006 but from 07-10-2016.

The Division Bench allowed the State’s appeals and set aside the orders of the Single Judge with respect to grant of interest on delayed payment of revised pension to the appellants, by the common judgment and order, which was then challenged in the instant appeal.

Court’s Assessment:

While perusing the matter, the Court took note of the genesis of the suit and the observation made by the High Court’s Division Bench about the appellants being fence-sitters and seeking benefits on the strength of the original litigation.

The Court noted that in terms of the order dated 25-07-2012, which attained finality on 10-07-2014, the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges were given revised pension with effect from 01-01-2006, on 07-11-2014. However, they were not granted any interest for the payment of arrears of pension due to them. Having compared with them, the appellants sought revised pension. During the writ proceedings, the State accepted the claim of the appellants and paid the arrears of revised pension with effect from 01-01-2006.

Therefore, since the appellants were claiming parity with the employees / Lecturers of the Government colleges, they should not be entitled to any payment of interest.

The Court further pointed out that entire case of the appellants was based on a factum recorded by Single Judge Bench about oral instructions being given to the State’s Counsel that interest will be given by the Government on delayed payment of revised pension. However, there was no written instruction furnished by the State; the appellants did not argue the matter on merits and the Single Judge passed the orders only on the concessions made on behalf of the State.

The Court further pointed out that it was manifestly clear that the appellants waited till the rights of the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges, were crystallised via a previous litigation in 2010 and thereafter, made representation to the respondent authorities and hence, they are not entitled to get any interest, by treating them as fence-sitters. “Though there may be some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State in furnishing instructions about the case, to the Court, that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment”.

Hence the Court did not find any infirmity with the impugned order of the Division Bench. The Court however observed that parties should present accurate information in writing and the Court should also pass orders only based on the written instructions, to enable it to fix the liability on the correct officials, responsible for any such wrongful representations/ instructions. Therefore, it is imperative that the officials/counsels appearing before the Court to represent the Government authorities should equip with proper written instructions from the competent authority. “Needless to state that if any misrepresentation is made on the part of the parties, in particular, Government authorities, the court should not shy away from it, rather act sternly by mulcting with costs on the official(s) who make the same”.