In Brief
Retired lecturers from government-aided private colleges in Haryana claimed interest on arrears of revised pension paid with retrospective effect from 2006. They sought parity with government college lecturers whose revised pension entitlements had been established through earlier litigation. The High Court denied interest, reasoning that the appellants were 'fence-sitters' who could not be placed in a better position than the original litigants who never received interest. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, holding that oral instructions from a court assistant—without written authority from a competent official—cannot obligate the state to pay interest. Since the benchmark litigants received no interest, claimants seeking parity with them cannot claim better treatment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.