{"file_name": "2024_10_1736_1747_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1736 : 2024 INSC 803\n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others \nv. \nState of Haryana and Others\n\n(Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024)\n\n21 October 2024\n\n[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether retired Lecturers/Principals of Government Aided Private \nColleges, who were granted arrears of revised pension, are entitled \nto interest on delayed payment of revised pension.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nHaryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – \nAppellants  were  Lecturers/Principals  from  Government \nAided  Private  Colleges  in  Haryana  –  Claimed  parity  with \nLecturers/Librarians of Government Colleges for increase of \npension based on 2009 Rules – Interest on delayed payment \nof  revised  pension  sought  –  Claims  rejected  –  Writ  petition \nfiled  –  During  pendency  of  petition,  State  agreed  to  revise \npension  – Statement made in court on instructions that interest \non delayed payment will be made – Single Judge dismissed \nappeals as withdrawn – State filed LPA to challenge payment \nof  interest  on  arrears  –  Division  Bench  allowed  appeal  vide \nimpugned  judgment  –  Held,  Appellants  being  fence-sitters \nnot entitled to interest which was not granted to Government \nCollege employees – Appeals dismissed:\n\nHeld: Appellants are retired Lecturers/Principals from Government \nAided  Private  Colleges  in  Haryana  –  They  claimed  parity  with \nLecturers/Librarians  in  Government  Colleges  for  increase  in \npension based on the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) \nPart I Rules, 2009 which were deemed to have come into force \non  01.01.2006  –  Respondent  authorities  denied  claims  for \nrevision  –  Writ  petitions  filed  by  appellants  –  During  pendency \nof  writ  petitions,  State  agreed  to  claims  for  revised  pension  – \nState Counsel also gave undertaking based on instructions of an \n\n* Author\n\n\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1737\n\nassistant present in court that interest on delayed payment would \nbe made – Single Judge of High Court recorded statements and \ndismissed the writ petition filed as withdrawn – Review application \nby  State  to  review  the  order  in  respect  of  payment  of  interest \non  the  amount  of  arrears  from  01.01.2006  was  dismissed  with \nliberty to file before appropriate forum – Letters Patent Appeals \nfiled  by  State  allowed  by  Division  Bench  of  High  Court  vide \nimpugned judgment.\n\nRetired  employees/Lecturers  of  the  Government  Colleges  were \ngiven  revised  pension  with  effect  from  01.01.2006  once  their \nlitigation achieved finality in 2014 – They were not granted interest \non delayed pension – Since present Appellants were claiming parity, \nthey  should  not  be  entitled  to  payment  of  interest  – Appellants \ninitiated  writ  proceedings  in  2015  –  They  waited  till  rights  of \nthe  retired  employees/Lecturers  of  the  Government  Colleges \ncrystalised  and  thereafter,  made  representation  to  Respondent \nauthorities – Hence not entitled to receive interest – To be treated \nas fence-sitters – Though there may be lapses on part of officials \nrepresenting the State in furnishing instructions, that by itself will \nnot  give  room  to Appellants  to  get  unjust  enrichment  – Appeals \ndismissed. [Paras 17-19]\n\nCourt should pass orders only based on written instructions  – \nenable to Court to fix liability in case of misrepresentation:\n\nHeld:  Appellants’  case  rests  on  the  factum  recorded  by  the \nSingle  Judge  that  the  Assistant  present  in  Court  gave  oral \ninstructions  to  State  counsel  –  No  written  instruction  furnished \nby  the  State,  matter  was  not  argued  on  merits,  and  order  was \npassed  only  on  concessions  made  on  behalf  of  State  –  Each \nparty should present truthful and accurate information to court to \nfacilitate  fair  adjudication  –  Officials/  counsel  appearing  for  the \nState  should  have  proper  written  instructions  from  competent \nauthority  –  Relying  on  oral  instructions  may  lead  to  factual \nerrors, misunderstanding/misrepresentations, etc., compromising \nintegrity of judicial process – Court should pass orders only based \non  written  instructions  to  enable  it  to  fix  the  liability  on  correct \nofficial(s),  responsible  for  any  such  wrongful  representations/\ninstructions. [Paras 18, 22]\n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f1738 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nHaryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009.\n\nList of Acts\n\nList of Keywords\n\nHaryana Civil Services Pension Rules; Parity; Fence-sitters ; Interest \non delayed pension payment; Oral instructions; Misrepresentation; \nJudicial integrity; Written instructions from parties.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11711 of 2024\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 29.09.2022 of the High Court \nof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 2396 of 2017\n\nWith\n\nCivil Appeal Nos. 11720, 11712 and 11713-11719 of 2024\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nNarender  Hooda,  Yatindra  Singh,  Sr.  Advs.,  Rahul  Rathore,   \nShiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj Nandal, Shivendra Dwivedi, Dr. Surender \nSingh  Hooda,  Ms.  Tannu,  Ms.  Awantika  Manohar,  Ms.  Parul \nDhruvey, Advs. for the Appellants.\n\nNikhil Goel, A.A.G., Akshay Amritanshu, Samyak Jain, Ms. Drishti \nSaraf,  Ms.  Pragya  Upadhyay,  Ms.  Siddhi  Gupta,  Naveen  Goel, \nAdvs. for the Respondents.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nR. Mahadevan, J.\n\nLeave granted.\n\n2.  The  challenge  in  these  appeals  is  to  the  common  judgment  and \norder dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High \nCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,1 in LPA Nos. 2396 of \n\n1 \n\nFor brevity, “the High Court”\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1739\n\n2017 (O&M) etc. cases,2 by which, the High Court has allowed the \nappeals  filed  by  the  State/respondent(s)  and  set  aside  the  orders \nof the learned Single Judge dated 30.11.2016 in CWP No.8988 of \n2015 and other connected cases, insofar as the grant of interest to \nthe writ petitioners/ appellants herein.\n\n3.  The  appellants  were  working  as  Lecturers  /  Principals  in  the \nGovernment Aided  Private  Colleges  in  the  State  of  Haryana  and \nthey  retired  from  service  prior  to  01.01.2006.  Claiming  parity  with \nthe  Lecturers/Librarians  of  the  Government  Colleges  in  relation  to \nthe increase of their pension, based on the Haryana Civil Services \n(Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009,3 the appellants preferred the \naforesaid  civil  writ  petitions  for  issuance  of  a  Writ  of  Certiorarified \nMandamus, to quash the orders of the respondent authorities denying \nrevised pension to the appellants as that of the employees/teachers of \nthe Government Colleges in Haryana, and to direct the respondent(s) \nto  grant  pension  to  the  appellants  in  the  corresponding  scale  of \nRs.37400  –  67000  + AGP4  Rs.9000/-  with  effect  from  01.01.2006 \nwith interest.\n\n4. \n\nIn the course of hearing of the civil writ petitions, the State counsel \nproduced a copy of the letter dated 07.11.2016 sent by the Principal \nSecretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, \nChandigarh, addressed to the Director Higher Education, Haryana, \nPanchkula, by which the State had agreed to give revised pension to \nthe retired employees of the Private Aided Colleges, and also gave an \nundertaking on the basis of the instructions furnished by one Assistant \nby name Preet Singh, who was present in the Court, to the effect that \nthe State would also pay interest on the delayed payment. In view of \nthe said letter and the oral instructions, the learned counsel for the \nappellants sought to withdraw the petitions. The learned Single Judge \nrecorded all these statements and dismissed the civil writ petitions as \nwithdrawn on 30.11.2016, besides issuing a direction to release the \narrears of pension to the appellants within a period of three months. \nSubsequently, on applications, by order dated 23.12.2016, the word \n“w.e.f.  01.01.2006”  was  inserted  after  the  words  “revised  pension” \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 \n\nState of Haryana and another v. Banarsi Dass and Others \n\nHereinafter shortly referred as “the Rules, 2009”\n\nAcademic Grade Pay\n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f1740 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nin  the  said  orders  dated  30.11.2016  passed  by  the  learned  Single \nJudge in CWP No.8988 of 2015 and connected cases. \n\n5.  Between 2017 and 2018, the State disbursed the arrears of revised \npension  to  the  appellants.  However,  they  preferred  a  Review \nApplication  bearing  No.RA-CW-383-2017,  seeking  to  review  the \nlearned  Single  Judge’s  orders  dated  30.11.2016  passed  in  CWP \nNo.8988 of 2015 and connected matters, on the premise that payment \nof  interest  on  the  amount  of  arrears  to  be  paid  w.e.f.  01.01.2006 \nwas  not  justified  as  the  decision  to  revise  the  pension  in  the  pay \nband of Rs. 37400 - 67000 + 9000 AGP was taken and approved \nby the Government of Haryana, Finance Department, vide U.O.No. \n66/5/2016-2FD-II/28139  dated  07.10.2016  and  therefore,  interest \non  belated  payment  of  pension  was  payable  not  from  01.01.2006 \nbut from 07.10.2016. By order dated 16.08.2017, the learned Single \nJudge dismissed the Review application, with liberty to the State to \napproach the appellate forum. \n\n6.  Feeling  aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the  order  passed  in  the \nReview Application, the State preferred LPA(s) before the Division \nBench seeking to set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge \ndated 30.11.2016, to the extent of granting payment of interest as \nclarified on 23.12.2016 in the civil writ petitions and on 16.08.2017 \nin the review application. The High Court allowed the State’s appeals \nand set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge with respect \nto  grant  of  interest  on  delayed  payment  of  revised  pension  to  the \nappellants, by the common judgment and order impugned herein. \n\n7. \n\n8. \n\nIn the given facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly \nthat  the  appellants  were  paid  the  revised  pension  with  effect  from \n01.01.2006, the only question to be answered in all these cases is, \nwhether they are entitled to interest on belated payment of revised \npension. \n\nLet  us  first  examine  the  genesis  of  the  present  lis.  The  Haryana \nGovernment, Department of Finance, vide Notification dated 17th April, \n2009, framed the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part - I \nRules, 2009,5 which were deemed to have come into force on the \n1st January, 2006. The Rules, 2009 applied to all pensioners / family \n\n5 \n\nFor short, “the Rules, 2009”\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1741\n\npensioners, who were drawing their pension/ family pension or who \nwere eligible / entitled to pension/family pension as on 01.01.2006 \nunder the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as amended from \ntime to time and as applicable to the pensioners/family pensioners \nunder the rule making power of Haryana Government. Rule 6 deals \nwith  ‘minimum  ceiling  of  pension/family  pension’,  which  reads  as \nunder:\n\n“6(1). The fixation of revised entitlement of pension shall \nbe subject to the provision that the revised entitlement of \npension  so  worked  out  shall,  in  no  case,  be  lower  than \nfifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band + \ngrade pay in the corresponding revised scale in terms of \nHaryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, or as \nthe case may be, Haryana Civil Services (Assured Career \nProgression)  Rules,  2008,  to  the  pre-revised  pay  scale \nfrom which the pensioner had retired. \n\n(2) The entitlement of pension calculated at 50 per cent \nof  the  minimum  of  pay  in  the  pay  band  plus  grade  pay \nwould  be  at  the  minimum  of  the  pay  in  the  pay  band \n(irrespective  of  the  pre-revised  scale  of  pay)  plus  the \ngrade  pay  corresponding  to  the  pre-revised  pay  scale. \nFor example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised \nscale of pay of Rs.18400-22400, the corresponding  pay \nband being Rs.37400-67000 and the corresponding grade \npay being Rs.10,000/- per month his minimum guaranteed \npension would be 50 per cent of Rs.37400/- + Rs.10,000 \nthat is Rs.23,700/-.\n\n(3)  The  entitlement  of  pension  is  worked  out  in  terms \nof  sub-rules  (1)  and  (2)  above  shall  further  be  reduced   \npro-rata in all cases, where the pensioner had less than \nthe minimum service required for full pension as per rules \nas applicable on 1st January, 2006 and in no case, it will \nbe less than Rs.3500/- per month.” \n\nPursuant  to  the  aforesaid  Rules,  pay  scale  was  revised  and  the \nteachers  working  in  the  Government  Colleges  were  receiving  the \nrevised  pension.  While  so,  the  Higher  Education  Commissioner, \nHaryana,  sent  a  communication  dated  07.09.2010  to  the  banks, \nstating  that  the  revised  pension  will  be  payable  only  to  those, \n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f1742 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nwho  were  in  service  as  on  01.01.2006  and  not  to  those  who  had \nretired  prior  to  01.01.2006  and  accordingly,  ordered  to  reduce  the \npension  and  recover  the  excess  payment  made.  The  said  order \nwas  challenged  in  CWP  No.19266  of  2010  and  connected  cases, \ntitled as Satyapal Yadav v. State of Haryana and others. By  order \ndated  25.07.2012,  the  said  civil  writ  petitions  came  to  be  allowed, \nby setting aside the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Higher \nEducation Commissioner, Haryana, after having held by the learned \nSingle Judge that the petitioners therein had completed 3 years of \nservice in the pre-revised scale of Rs.12000 – 18300 prior to their \nretirement, i.e., before 01.01.2006, and hence, they are entitled to \nthe fixation of pension by placing them in the minimum pay band of \nRs.37400 – 67000 with AGP of Rs.9000/- or revision of their pension / \nfamily pension with effect from 01.01.2006. The appeals6 preferred by \nthe State before the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and \nHaryana as well as this Court, ended in dismissal. Since the order \ndated 25.07.2012 passed in CWP.No.19266 of 2010 and connected \ncases, attained finality, the Haryana Government complied with the \nsame, by order dated 07.11.2014. \n\nIn  the  meanwhile,  the  appellants  approached  the  respondent \nauthorities seeking pension in the corresponding scale of Rs.37400- \n67000 + AGP Rs.9000/- with effect from 01.01.2006 on par with the \nemployees/teachers of the Government Colleges in Haryana, which \nwas  rejected  on  the  ground  that  such  benefit  was  granted  only  to \nthe  teachers  working  in  the  Government  colleges  and  not  for  the \nteachers  working  in  Government Aided  Colleges.  Challenging  the \nsaid rejection, CWP.No.8988 of 2015 etc. cases were filed. During \nthe  pendency  of  the  same,  the  State  accepted  the  claim  of  the \nappellants  and  hence,  the  writ  petitions  came  to  be  dismissed  as \nwithdrawn on 30.11.2016. Seeking to review the order in respect of \ngrant of interest on delayed payment of pension, the State preferred \nthe Review application, which was dismissed. However, the Letter \nPatent Appeals7 filed by the State were allowed by the High Court, \nby observing that the appellants were fence-sitters and were seeking \n\n9. \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\nLPA No.1955 of 2012 was dismissed on 14.01.2013 and SLP (C) No.26907 of 2013 was dismissed on \n10.07.2014 \n\nLPA  Nos.2396  of  2017  etc.  cases  against  the  order  dated  30.11.2016  in  CWP  No.8988  of  2015  and \nconnected cases\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1743\n\nthe benefits on the strength of the original litigation, which others had \nsuccessfully contested upto Apex Court and therefore, they cannot \nbe  placed  at  a  better  footing  than  the  original  litigants,  who  never \ngot interest. The said order of the High Court is questioned in these \nappeals by special leave. \n\n10.  The common submission made by the learned counsel appearing \nfor the appellants in all the appeals is that by the order impugned \nherein,  the  appellants  have  been  illegally  and  arbitrarily  denied \ninterest on the belated payment of revised pension w.e.f 01.01.2006, \nby  observing  that  they  were  fence-sitters  and  hence  cannot  be \nplaced  at  a  better  pedestal  than  the  original  litigants,  who  had \nsuccessfully  contested  and  won  the  case  and  were  not  granted \ninterest. According to the learned counsel, the said observation of \nthe High Court is in complete disregard to the fact that the original \nlitigants referred to in the order impugned herein, were Lecturers/\nLibrarians in the Government Colleges, who had started getting the \nrevised  pension  w.e.f.  01.01.2006  and  from  whom  recovery  was \ninitiated  by  the  respondent  authorities  on  the  premise  that  they \nwere  made  excess  payment  and  therefore,  the  issue  of  interest \non  delayed  payment  of  pension  did  not  arise  therein.  It  is  further \nelaborated  that  the  appellants  who  had  retired  from  Government \nAided  Private  Colleges  prior  to  01.01.2006  were  claiming  parity \nwith the pension allowed and paid to the Lecturers of Government \nColleges  and  hence,  by  no  stretch  of  imagination  they  could  be \ntermed as fence sitters; and by payment of interest on the delayed \npayment of pension, it cannot be said that they will be placed at a \nbetter  footing than the  original  litigants, since the original litigants \ncontinued  to  get  the  revised  pension,  whereas  in  the  case  of  the \nappellants, even the revised pension was not paid to them until the \nyear 2017-2018, despite the passing of the orders dated 30.11.2016 \nby the learned Single Judge.\n\n11.  Continuing further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted \nthat denial of grant of interest to the appellants is contrary to the stand \ntaken  by  the  State  in  the  writ  proceedings,  in  which,  the  Learned \nSingle  Judge  passed  the orders dated 30.11.2016  on the basis of \nthe undertaking given by the State Counsel that the revised pension \nis allowed to the appellants, who had retired prior to 01.01.2006 and \nthe Government shall pay interest on the delayed payment. Thus, it \n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f1744 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n12. \n\nis urged that in terms of the orders dated 30.11.2016 passed in CWP \nNo.8988 of 2015 etc. cases, the appellants were entitled to revised \npension along with interest on the delayed payment. \n\nIt is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that \nin  the  Contempt  Petition  bearing  COCP  No.2846  of  2017  in  CWP \nNo.  8988  of  2015,  titled  as  Banarsi  Dass  and  Ors.  v.  Jyoti Arora \nand  another,  an  affidavit  was  filed  by  Mrs.  Jyoti Arora, Additional \nChief  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Haryana,  Higher  Education \nDepartment, Chandigarh, on 01.05.2018 stating inter alia that the writ \npetitioners therein are entitled to interest from the date of issuance \nof  the  Policy  dated  12.10.2010  by  the  Principal  Secretary,  Higher \nEducation, Government of Haryana, regarding revision of pension/ \nfamily  pension  of  the  retirees  of  Non-Government Affiliated Aided \nColleges in the State; and accordingly, interest at 9% was calculated \nw.e.f.  12.10.2010.  However,  on  22.10.2018,  an  additional  affidavit \ndated 22.10.2018 was filed by the said Mrs. Jyoti Arora, stating that \nthe writ petitioners therein are not entitled to any interest. Thus, the \nrespondent authorities have taken different stand at every stage of \nthe proceedings, thereby depriving the appellants from getting their \nlegitimate claim of interest on the delayed payment. Without properly \nappreciating the same, the High Court erred in allowing the State’s \nappeals by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in \nrespect of grant of interest on the delayed payment to the appellants \nand hence, the same is liable to be quashed.\n\n13.  Opposing  the  claim  of  the  appellants,  the  learned  counsel  for  the \nState  /  respondent(s)  made  the  following  submissions:  (i)  Rule \n6  of  the  Rules,  2009  specifically  deals  with  the  case  of  Retired \nGovernment employees and there is no provision in the Rules, 2009 \nto  award  interest  for  any  belated  payment;  (ii)  Earlier  and  present \nlitigations only pertain to grant of revised pension to the Government \nCollege Lecturers and Private Aided College Lecturers, both on the \nbasis of 2009 Rules; (iii) The pay scale revisions are retrospective \nin  nature  and  are  without  interest;  (iv)  interest  cannot  be  offered, \nbased on equitable considerations;8 and (v) Concessions made by \na Government counsel cannot be granted, unless there are written \n\n8 \n\nUnion of India and Others v. Dr. J K Goel (1995) Supp. 3 SCC 161\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1745\n\ninstructions  from  a  responsible  officer.9  Thus,  the  learned  counsel \nsubmitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, \nthe High Court correctly denied the grant of interest on the delayed \npayment, which does not call for any interference by this court. \n\n14.  As a riposte, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that \nthe  decisions  relied  on  the  side  of  the  State  are  not  applicable  to \nthe facts of the present case, wherein the case was not contested \non merits and based on the statement made by the State in the writ \nproceedings,  the  learned  Single  Judge  passed  the  orders  dated \n30.11.2016 relating to grant of interest on the delayed payment. It \nis also submitted that on behalf of the State, one Assistant by name \nPreet Singh was present in the Court and after obtaining instructions \nfrom him, the State counsel made the statement before the learned \nSingle Judge that the Government shall pay interest on the delayed \npayment. Therefore, the learned  counsel  prayed to this Court that \nthe  State  may  be  directed  to  grant  interest  at  the  rate  of  9%  from \n01.01.2006  or  at  least  from  the  date  on  which  the  Government \napproved the grant of revised pension to the retired teachers of the \nGovernment Aided Private Colleges.\n\n15.  We have considered the submissions made  by the learned senior \ncounsel and learned AAG appearing for the parties and perused the \nmaterials on record.\n\n16.  Concededly, the appellants were paid the arrears of revised pension \nw.e.f.  01.01.2006,  on  par  with  the  employees  /  Lecturers  of  the \nGovernment Colleges, during 2017-2018. Claiming interest on such \npayment, which was originally granted by the learned Single Judge \nand  was  subsequently,  denied  by  the  High  Court,  the  appellants \nare before us. \n\n17.  As we have already stated, in terms of the order dated 25.07.2012, \nwhich  attained  finality  on  10.07.2014,  the  retired  employees  / \nLecturers of the Government Colleges were given revised pension \nwith effect from 01.01.2006, on 07.11.2014. However, they were not \ngranted  any  interest  for  the  payment  of  arrears  of  pension  due  to \nthem.  Having  compared  with  them,  the  appellants  sought  revised \npension,  by  filing  CWP  No.8988  of  2015  and  connected  cases. \n\n9 \n\nPeriyar & Pareekannai Rubber Ltd v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195\n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f1746 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nDuring  the  writ  proceedings,  the  State  accepted  the  claim  of  the \nappellants and paid the arrears of revised pension with effect from \n01.01.2006. Therefore, since the appellants were claiming parity with \nthe employees / Lecturers of the Government colleges, they should \nnot be entitled to any payment of interest. \n\n18.  Apparently,  the  entire  case  of  the  appellants  rests  on  the  factum \nrecorded by the learned Single Judge in his orders dated 30.11.2016 \nto the effect that the Assistant, Preet Singh gave oral instructions to \nthe State counsel that interest will be given by the Government on \ndelayed  payment  of  revised  pension.  However,  it  is  interesting  to \nnote that there was no written instruction furnished by the State; the \nappellants did not argue the matter on merits; and the learned Single \nJudge passed the orders dated 30.11.2016, only on the concessions \nmade on behalf of the State. In such circumstances, the claim of the \nappellants seeking interest, has no legs to stand.\n\n19. \n\nIt is also required to be pointed out that the revised structure of pay \nof  teachers  and  equivalent  teachers  in  Universities  and  Colleges \nin  Haryana,  was  issued  by  the  Government  of  Haryana,  Finance \nDepartment, on 27.08.2009, which was subsequently clarified on \n02.09.2009. On the basis of the same, the employees / teachers \nworking  in  the  Government  colleges  received  the  revised  pay.  In \nthe meanwhile, the Rules, 2009 relating to all pensioners / family \npensioners,  who  were  drawing  their  pension/  family  pension  or \nwho  were  eligible  /  entitled  to  pension  /  family  pension  as  on \n01.01.2006, were notified on 17.04.2009, and they were deemed \nto have come into force with effect from 01.01.2006. As per Rule 6 \nof the Rules, 2009, and the subsequent clarification issued by the \nHigher  Education  Commissioner,  Haryana,  the  person,  who  had \ncompleted 3 years of service in the pre-revised scale of pay and/ \nor the corresponding pay scale applicable prior to 01.01.1996, shall \nbe  placed  in  the  minimum  of  the  pay  band  of  Rs.37400  –  67000 \n+ AGP of Rs.9000/- for revision of pension / family pension, with \neffect from 01.01.2006. Pursuant to the same, the retired employees \n/ Lecturers of the Government colleges started litigation in the year \n2010,  which  attained  finality  in  the  year  2014  and  consequently, \nthey were paid the arrears of revised pension on 07.11.2014. Only \nthereafter, the appellants initiated the writ proceedings in the year \n2015.  Thus,  it  is  manifestly  clear  that  the  appellants  waited  till \nthe rights of the retired employees / Lecturers of the Government \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1747\n\nColleges, were crystalised and thereafter, made representation to \nthe respondent authorities and hence, they are not entitled to get \nany interest, by treating them as fence-sitters. Though there may \nbe some lapses on the part of the officials representing the State \nin  furnishing  instructions  about  the  case,  to  the  Court,  however \nthat by itself will not give any room for the appellants to get unjust \nenrichment. \n\n20. \n\nIn view of the above stated reasons, we do not find any infirmity or \nillegality in the common judgment passed by the High Court, setting \naside the orders of the learned Single Judge qua grant of interest \non the belated payment of pension to the appellants.\n\n21.  Therefore, all the Appeals are devoid of merits and are accordingly \ndismissed.  However,  there  is  no  order  as  to  costs.  Pending \napplication(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. \n\n22.  Before  parting,  we  wish  to  observe  that  each  party  should  present \ntruthful and accurate information to the court to facilitate fair adjudication. \nSuch  information  should  be  provided  in  the  form  of  writing.  Relying \non the oral instructions may lead to factual errors, misunderstanding / \nmisrepresentations, etc., ultimately compromising the integrity of the \njudicial process. Misleading representations not only affect the parties \ninvolved, but also erode public trust in the judicial system as a whole. \nThe Court should also pass orders only based on the written instructions, \nso as to enable it to fix the liability on the correct official(s), responsible \nfor  any  such  wrongful  representations  /  instructions.  Therefore,  it  is \nimperative that the official(s)/counsel(s) appearing before the Court to \nrepresent the Government authorities should equip with proper written \ninstructions from the competent authority(ies). Needless to state that if \nany misrepresentation is made on the part of the parties, in particular, \nGovernment authorities, the court should not shy away from it, rather \nact sternly by mulcting with costs on the official(s) who make the same.\n\nResult of the case: Appeals dismissed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor \n\n(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)\n\nK.C. Kaushik and Others v. State of Haryana and Others\f"}