Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that all parties must provide truthful and accurate written submissions to ensure fair adjudication, warning that reliance on oral statements can lead to factual errors, misunderstandings, or misrepresentations, which compromise the integrity of the judicial process.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan noted that misleading representations not only harm 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)," the bench said.

The bench further clarified 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 such a statement.

The court made these observations while dismissing appeals by K C Kaushik and others against a common judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court of September 29, 2022.

The division bench of the high court had set aside the orders of the single judge bench's order dated November 30, 2016, which had granted interest to the writ petitioners and appellants on their pensions. These petitioners had retired as lecturers from government-aided private colleges in Haryana before January 1, 2006.

In the case, the bench noted concededly, the appellants were paid the arrears of revised pension w.e.f. January 01, 2006, on par with the employees / Lecturers of the Government Colleges, during 2017-2018. Claiming interest on such payment, which was originally granted by the single judge and was subsequently, denied by the high court, the appellants filed the plea before the apex court.

In the case, the court noted that the retired employees and lecturers of the government colleges started litigation in the year 2010, which attained finality in the year 2014 and consequently, they were paid the arrears of revised pension on November 07, 2014. Only thereafter, the appellants initiated the writ proceedings in the year 2015. 

"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," the bench said.

Court also noted that 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 did not give any room for the appellants to get unjust enrichment. 

The bench also noted that apparently, the entire case of the appellants rested on the factum recorded by the single judge in his orders on November 30, 2016 to the effect that one Assistant Preet Singh gave oral instructions to the State counsel that interest will be given by the government on delayed payment of revised pension.

"However, it is interesting to note that 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. In such circumstances, the claim of the appellants seeking interest, has no legs to stand," the bench said.

The court thus found no 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.

Case Title: K C Kaushik And Others Vs State of Haryana And Others