K.C. KAUSHIK AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736 · Decided: 21-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736 : 2024 INSC 803
K.C. Kaushik and Others 
v. 
State of Haryana and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024)
21 October 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private 
Colleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled 
to interest on delayed payment of revised pension.
Headnotes†
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – 
Appellants were Lecturers/Principals from Government 
Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – Claimed parity with 
Lecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of 
pension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment 
of revised pension sought – Claims rejected – Writ petition 
filed – During pendency of petition, State agreed to revise 
pension  – Statement made in court on instructions that interest 
on delayed payment will be made – Single Judge dismissed 
appeals as withdrawn – State filed LPA to challenge payment 
of interest on arrears – Division Bench allowed appeal vide 
impugned judgment – Held, Appellants being fence-sitters 
not entitled to interest which was not granted to Government 
College employees – Appeals dismissed:
Held: Appellants are retired Lecturers/Principals from Government 
Aided Private Colleges in Haryana – They claimed parity with 
Lecturers/Librarians in Government Colleges for increase in 
pension based on the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) 
Part I Rules, 2009 which were deemed to have come into force 
on 01.01.2006 – Respondent authorities denied claims for 
revision – Writ petitions filed by appellants – During pendency 
of writ petitions, State agreed to claims for revised pension – 
State Counsel also gave undertaking based on instructions of an 
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
1737
K.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
assistant present in court that interest on delayed payment would 
be made – Single Judge of High Court recorded statements and 
dismissed the writ petition filed as withdrawn – Review application 
by State to review the order in respect of payment of interest 
on the amount of arrears from 01.01.2006 was dismissed with 
liberty to file before appropriate forum – Letters Patent Appeals 
filed by State allowed by Division Bench of High Court vide 
impugned judgment.
Retired employees/Lecturers of the Government Colleges were 
given revised pension with effect from 01.01.2006 once their 
litigation achieved finality in 2014 – They were not granted interest 
on delayed pension – Since present Appellants were claiming parity, 
they should not be entitled to payment of interest – Appellants 
initiated writ proceedings in 2015 – They waited till rights of 
the retired employees/Lecturers of the Government Colleges 
crystalised and thereafter, made representation to Respondent 
authorities – Hence not entitled to receive interest – To be treated 
as fence-sitters – Though there may be lapses on part of officials 
representing the State in furnishing instructions, that by itself will 
not give room to Appellants to get unjust enrichment – Appeals 
dismissed. [Paras 17-19]
Court should pass orders only based on written instructions  – 
enable to Court to fix liability in case of misrepresentation:
Held: Appellants’ case rests on the factum recorded by the 
Single Judge that the Assistant present in Court gave oral 
instructions to State counsel – No written instruction furnished 
by the State, matter was not argued on merits, and order was 
passed only on concessions made on behalf of State – Each 
party should present truthful and accurate information to court to 
facilitate fair adjudication – Officials/ counsel appearing for the 
State should have proper written instructions from competent 
authority – Relying on oral instructions may lead to factual 
errors, misunderstanding/misrepresentations, etc., compromising 
integrity of judicial process – Court should pass orders only based 
on written instructions to enable it to fix the liability on correct 
official(s), responsible for any such wrongful representations/
instructions. [Paras 18, 22]
1738
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009.
List of Keywords
Haryana Civil Services Pension Rules; Parity; Fence-sitters ; Interest 
on delayed pension payment; Oral instructions; Misrepresentation; 
Judicial integrity; Written instructions from parties.
Case

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.