The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals of the appellants (retired lecturers from private aided colleges) who sought interest on the delayed payment of revised pensions. The court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision, denying interest, stating that the appellants were "fence-sitters" and not entitled to better treatment than the original litigants (lecturers from government colleges) who did not receive interest on their pension arrears. The court emphasized that representations made by government authorities to courts should always be in writing, avoiding oral misrepresentations.

1. Introduction (Paras 1-2)
The appeals arise from a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the interest on the delayed payment of revised pensions to retired lecturers of private aided colleges.

2. Background (Paras 3-7)
The appellants, retired lecturers from private aided colleges, sought pension revisions similar to those granted to government college lecturers. Their writ petitions were initially dismissed after the government agreed to the pension revisions with interest, but a later review application and subsequent appeals resulted in the denial of interest on the delayed payments.

3. High Court’s Decision (Paras 8-10)
The High Court ruled that the appellants, who had not actively pursued their claims initially and waited until the litigation by government college lecturers concluded, were "fence-sitters." Thus, they were not entitled to interest on arrears.

4. Appellants' Argument (Paras 11-12)
The appellants argued that they were entitled to interest, based on earlier promises by government officials in court and written instructions. They sought parity with the original litigants.

5. State’s Defense (Paras 13-14)
The State of Haryana opposed the claim, arguing that the appellants were not entitled to interest under the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, and that concessions made by government counsel orally in court without written instructions were not binding.

6. Legal Considerations and Findings (Paras 15-20)
The court examined the case and concluded that since the original litigants did not receive interest, the appellants could not be treated differently. Oral instructions provided by government counsel were insufficient to create a binding obligation. The court also criticized reliance on oral submissions in judicial processes, emphasizing the need for written instructions.

7. Final Judgment (Paras 21-22)
The appeals were dismissed, and the court reiterated the importance of accurate, written instructions from government authorities during litigation.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Part I Rules, 2009 – The legal framework for revising pensions for retirees, including private and government college employees, under which the appellants sought pension revisions.
2. Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II – Applied to pensioners in Haryana, dictating the pension entitlements from which the appellants claimed parity.
3. Rules 6 of the Rules, 2009 – Specifically related to pension calculations, including minimum ceilings and corresponding pay band adjustments.
4. Letters from the Government of Haryana – Various communications and notifications setting the timeline for pension revisions, but not including provisions for interest on delayed payments.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court ruled that appellants, who had not actively pursued their rights in a timely manner and benefited from the litigation by government college lecturers, could not claim interest on delayed pension payments. The court emphasized that judicial processes should rely on written, not oral, representations, ensuring accountability.

Subjects:

Delayed pension payments, interest claims by retired private aided college lecturers.

Pension revision, fence-sitters, delayed payments, Supreme Court of India, Haryana Civil Services, oral representations, interest denial, private aided colleges, government college parity.