Misleading Representations Erode Public Trust; Counsel Representing Government Authorities Should Get Proper Written Instructions From Them: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to represent the Government authorities should get proper written instructions from them.
The Court observed thus while it upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench's decision, which set aside the Single Bench's order granting interest on delayed pension payments to the appellants.
The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the retired Lecturers and Principals (appellants) of Government-Aided Private Colleges in Haryana regarding the entitlement of interest on delayed payments of revised pensions, backdated to 2006, as per the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 (Pension Rules).
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Misleading representations not only affect the parties involved, but also erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole. The Court should also pass orders only based on the written instructions, so as to enable it to fix the liability on the correct official(s), responsible for any such wrongful representations / instructions. Therefore, it is imperative that the official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to represent the Government authorities should equip with proper written instructions from the competent authority(ies). 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."
Senior Advocates Yatindra Singh and Narender Hooda represented the appellants, while AAG Nikhil Goel for the respondents.
The Division Bench of the High Court had observed that the appellants were fence-sitters and hence could not be placed at a better pedestal than the original litigants, who had successfully contested and won the case and were not granted interest.
The appellants argued that they had been illegally and arbitrarily denied interest on the belated payment of the revised pension. The State, on the other hand, opposed the claims of interest, asserting that the pay revisions under the Pension Rules were retrospective but did not provide for interest on delayed payments.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants, having already received arrears of their revised pension payments, were not entitled to any interest. “In view of the above stated reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the common judgment passed by the High Court, setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge qua grant of interest on the belated payment of pension to the appellants,” it held.
The Bench noted that since the appellants were claiming parity with the employees/Lecturers of the Government colleges, they should not be entitled to any payment of interest.
Consequently, the Court observed, “Thus, it is manifestly clear that the appellants waited till the rights of the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges, were crystalised 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, however that by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment.”
Cause Title: K.C. Kaushik & Ors. v. State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 803)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Yatindra Singh and Narender Hooda; AOR Awantika Manohar and Surender Singh Hooda; Advocates Parul Dhurvey, Shiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj Nandal, Pallvi Hooda and Tannu
Respondents: AAG Nikhil Goel; AOR Akshay Amritanshu; Advocates Samyak Jain, Drishti Saraf, Pragya Upadhyay, Siddhi Gupta and Naveen Goel