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

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

Appellants, who sought parity with Government College employees, were not entitled to interest on belated payment because the comparable class of Government College employees were not granted interest; moreover the Single Judge's recording of an oral undertaking in court without written instructions was insufficient to create a legal entitlement to interest, and appellants who waited until rights of others crystallised are 'fence-sitters' not entitled to unjust enrichment; accordingly the High Court correctly set aside the Single Judge's grant of interest and the appeals are dismissed.

Parties
Appellants: K.C. Kaushik and Others; Respondents: State of Haryana and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Revised Pension, Interest on Delayed Payment, Parity, Oral Instructions to Counsel, Fence Sitters, Judicial Integrity, Written Instructions From Parties
Administrative Law Pension Law Service Law Civil Procedure Revised Pension Interest on Delayed Payment Parity Oral Instructions to Counsel +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.C. Kaushik and Others

Appellants

State of Haryana and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court From Division Bench Judgment of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private Colleges who were paid arrears of revised pension are entitled to interest on delayed payment of revised pension
  2. 2 Whether oral instructions given in court to State counsel without written instructions can support an order for payment of interest or other relief

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants, who sought parity with Government College employees, were not entitled to interest on belated payment because the comparable class of Government College employees were not granted interest; moreover the Single Judge's recording of an oral undertaking in court without written instructions was insufficient to create a legal entitlement to interest, and appellants who waited until rights of others crystallised are 'fence-sitters' not entitled to unjust enrichment; accordingly the High Court correctly set aside the Single Judge's grant of interest and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • All appeals dismissed
  • No order as to costs