Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 21 (CHH)

RAMRATAN MEHSRAM v. STATE OF M. P.

2001-03-03

L.J.SINGH

body2001
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this petition with a prayer that the respondents be ordered to pay the amount of anticipatory pension, pension, gratuity: family benefit, Provident Fund, leave encashment, and surrendered leave of 9 months. The arrears of increments from the year 1989 to 1994 and T.A. bill for return to home after retirement and T.A. bills for attending the D.E. He has also prayed that the respondents be ordered to send N.O.C. to the respondent no. 6, so that the amount of pay order received by the Treasury Officer since 236-97 be paid to the applicant. 2. Main contention of the applicant is that the applicant retired as a Naib Tahsildar from 31-3-94. For Payment of commuted pension of Rs. 39,162/ - and family benefit of Rs. 37,487/- pay order has been received by the Treasury Officer of Durg. The Treasury Officer, Durg, respondent no. 6 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 4 and the respondent no. 4 wrote a letter to the respondent no. 5 Tahsildar Manendragarh but due to act of the respondent no. 5 Tahsildar Manendragarh the N.O.C. has not been sent to the Treasury Officer, Durg, hence the applicant failed to receive above amounts. 3. Further contention of the applicant is that the applicant was receiving anticipatory pension of Rs. 2225/- it was also withheld without any reason after August, 97. The applicant was also not paid the amount of retiral benefits. He failed to receive Gratuity and arrears of annual increments for the year 1991 to 1994. The respondents have failed to release the amount of his T.A. Bill of returning home after retirement and the T.A. Bills for attending the D.E. case on 30-10-94, 30-11-94, 4-1-95, 8-2-95. The applicant has contended that the respondents have ruined his financial position. 4. The applicant has contended that he was granted anticipatory pension and it was revealed in letter dated 1-7-95 of respondent no. 4 that other claims of the applicant will be decided after the decision of the D.E. Case. The applicant has not been paid the anticipatory pension after August, 97. A demand of 5% commission was made from the applicant, so the applicant made a complaint. The applicant was intimated by the respondent no. 5 that the Commissioner has taken the matter seriously, but it has no result. The applicant has not been paid the anticipatory pension after August, 97. A demand of 5% commission was made from the applicant, so the applicant made a complaint. The applicant was intimated by the respondent no. 5 that the Commissioner has taken the matter seriously, but it has no result. The applicant's further contention is that he has not been paid the amount of his commuted pension due to corrupt practice. The respondent no. 4 wrote a letter Annexure A-7 to the respondent no. 5 inspite of that the applicant has not been paid the amount of gratuity and arrears of annual increment for the year 1991 to 1994. Further contention of the applicant is that he has not been paid the amount of G.P.F. and surrendered leave. 5. Further contention of the applicant is that the applicant was charge sheeted and was suspended by the respondent no. 3, before three months of his retirement and in his D.E. a final order was passed on 28-10-96 with a punishment of forfeiting the pay of the applicant for three months and with a decision not to count the service of 3 months i.e. period of suspension. As per applicant this order is illegal since the enquiry was not done by the appointing authority i.e. the State Government, hence the applicant has filed this petition. 6. The respondent no. 6 has filed his separate return. The contention of the respondent no. 6 is that the information regarding pension of the applicant was received from Tahsildar, Manendragarh on 23-9-98 and the applicant has been paid his departmental pension on 510-98. 7. Further contention of the respondent no. 6 is that nothing is pending in the Treasury regarding payment of the applicant. He has also contended that the applicant is receiving his pension from State Bank of India, Branch Dondi Lohara. 8. All other respondents have filed their return separately. The contention of the respondents is that the applicant has been paid the amount of his pension Rs. 96,497/- on 5-10-98. He has also received the commuted pension of Rs. 39162/- and the amount of gratuity Rs. 37,422/- by treasury officer of Durg on 5-10-98. 9. Further contention of the respondents is that the applicant has been paid the amount of Rs. 4450/- vide Bank Draft No. M.T. TB 24/2248. 96,497/- on 5-10-98. He has also received the commuted pension of Rs. 39162/- and the amount of gratuity Rs. 37,422/- by treasury officer of Durg on 5-10-98. 9. Further contention of the respondents is that the applicant has been paid the amount of Rs. 4450/- vide Bank Draft No. M.T. TB 24/2248. The applicant failed to send the acknowledgement receipt of the payment, hence the applicant has not been paid the anticipatory pension of the period 9/97 and 10/97. 10. Further contention of the respondents is that the increment in the pay of the applicant from the year 1991 to 1993 has been granted by the Collector of Sarguja. They have also contended that since the applicant retired in March, 94, he could not be granted the increment of pay which is due in the month of July. 11. Further contention of the respondents is that the amount of increment in pay, arrears and T.A. Bill are to be decided by the Collector of Sarguja, which has not been decided so far. They have also contended that the Collector has to decide the payment regarding leave encashment which is pending. 12. Further contention of the respondents is that the applicant has been paid his pension and gratuity by Treasury Officer, Durg. As per respondents, since the applicant has not tiled any application before the Collector, Sarguja, the case of the applicant is pending before the Collector, Sarguja regarding encashment of leave and increments in pay and the amount of T.A. bills. 13. The applicant has filed his rejoinder. The contention of the applicant is that the respondents are liable to pay the interest in view of belated payment. As per applicant, the applicant is entitled for the increments of his pay for the year 1991 to 1993 with interest due to non payment of the amount and due to belated payment. 14. Further contention of the applicant is that the applicant is entitled for the pay which has not been given to the applicant in view of D.E. He has also contended that the pass-book of the applicant was not prepared by the department hence the respondent~ are liable for the interest in view of pelated payment. 15. The last contention of the applicant is that he is entitled for the payment with interest on the amount of arrears of new pension of the applicant. 16. 15. The last contention of the applicant is that he is entitled for the payment with interest on the amount of arrears of new pension of the applicant. 16. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the documents filed by both the parties. 17. The point for consideration before this Tribunal is "Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed in the petition ?" 18. First of all, it is to be seen, the applicant has contended that he is entitled for the payment of his period of suspension. The applicant has filed Annexure A-8. From the perusal of Annexure A-8, it is clear that one D.E. was held against the applicant and the applicant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division who passed order Annexure A-8. The Commissioner of Bilaspur has held that the applicant will not be paid the amount for the period of his suspension and the period of suspension be treated as 'Dies-non'. 19. Though, the applicant has contended that he is entitled for the above mentioned amount, but I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled for any amount during period of suspension as per order Annexure A-8, if there was any grievance before the applicant regarding order Annexure A-8 i.e. the order passed by the Commissioner in his appeal, he was entitled to file a petition before the Tribunal against the order of appeal and to approach the Govt. but the applicant failed to file a petition before this Tribunal, hence the order Annexure A-8 cannot be interfered at this stage by this Tribunal, in this petition, since above prayer is barred by limitation. 20. Now the other points are being considered. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant retired as Naib Tahsildar on 31-3-94. From the perusal of the return of the respondent no. 6 it is clear that the applicant has received the difference of the amount of his pension for the period 1-4-94 to 31-8-98 on 5-10-98. Now it is proved that the applicant has received the amount of Rs. 96,4971- as a difference of pension after a period of more than 4 years. The respondents have failed to prove that due to fault of the applicant the above amount was not paid to the applicant within a period of 2 months after his retirement. Now it is proved that the applicant has received the amount of Rs. 96,4971- as a difference of pension after a period of more than 4 years. The respondents have failed to prove that due to fault of the applicant the above amount was not paid to the applicant within a period of 2 months after his retirement. So, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the interest on the amount of Rs. 96,497/- as mentioned in Para 3.1 of the return of the respondent no. 6. 21. From the perusal of the return of the respondent no. 6 it is also clear that the applicant has been paid the amount of commuted pension Rs.39,162/on 5-10-98 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years of his retirement. So, the applicant is entitled for the interest on the above amount. At the same time, it is also proved from the return of the respondent no. 6 that the applicant has been paid the amount of gratuity of Rs. 37,422/- after a period of more than 4 years of his retirement so he is entitled for the interest on the above amount also in view of belated payment. 22. The applicant has prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the amount of his G.P.F. which has not been paid to the applicant so far. The respondents have failed to prove that the amount of G.P.F. has been paid to the applicant, hence I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the full amount of his G.P.F. with interest for nonpayment of the amount after a lapse of more than 4 years. 23. The applicant has prayed that he be paid his T.A. bills, leave encashment amount and the increments of his pay from the year 1991 to 1994. From the perusal of the return filed by the respondents it is clear that the applicant has not received the amount of his increment of pay from the year 1991 to 1993, so he is entitled to receive the above amount but it is clear from the return of the respondents that the applicant is not entitled for the increment of his pay for the year 1994 simply because the applicant retired in the month of March' 94 and the increment of the applicant was due in the month of July' 94. Regarding leave encashment, it is clear from the return of the respondents that the applicant has not received the amount of his leave encashment and T.A. bills and the case regarding payment of leave encashment and arrears of increment and T.A. bills are pending before the collector which is to be decided in near future. The applicant has also contended that he has not received the amount of his TA. bill of the period of his journal after retirement to his home place. The respondents have admitted that above payment is to be made by the Collector, which has not been made so far. In view of the return of the respondent no. 6, it is proved that the applicant has not received the amount of leave encashment with interest in view of non-payment of the above amount after a period of more than 4 years of the retirement of the applicant. The applicant is also entitled for the amount of his TA. bills alongwith interest and the amount of arrears of increment for the year 1991 to 1993 alongwith interest. 24. The applicant has also prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the amount of his family benefit with interest. From the perusal of the written synopsis filed by the applicant, it is clear that the applicant has received the amount of his family benefit at a belated stage, so, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the interest on the above amount from 1-6-94 i.e. after two months of retirement of the applicant till the date of payment. 25. In view of the above-discussion, it is clear that the applicant retired on 31-3-94, but no failed to receive the amount of all his retiral benefits after a period of more than 4 years. 26. In State of Kerala & Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair; AIR 1985 SC 356 and in Dov-kinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others; 1985 (1) L.N.N. 9, Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in Rampyari Shukla Vs. Secretary, Central Social Welfare Board, Bhopal & Others; M.P. No. 2120 of 1984 dated 12-10-85. 26. In State of Kerala & Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair; AIR 1985 SC 356 and in Dov-kinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others; 1985 (1) L.N.N. 9, Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in Rampyari Shukla Vs. Secretary, Central Social Welfare Board, Bhopal & Others; M.P. No. 2120 of 1984 dated 12-10-85. Hon'ble the High Court of M.P. has held that- the retired employee is entitled to get all pensionary benefits and pensionary benefits are no longer bounty to be distributed by the State to its employees on their retirement, but is a valuable right and property in their hands. So, I am of the opinion that in view of the above mentioned judgments, the applicant is entitled for the interest on the amount of his retiral benefits after a period of two months of his retirement i.e. 1-6-94 till the date when the amounts of his retiral benefits were paid to him simply because the non-applicants have failed to justify the reason for belated payment of the retiral benefits of the applicant. They have also failed to prove why the amount of all the retiral benefits were not given to the applicant just after a period of two months of his retirement. 27. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uma Agrawal (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P.; 1999 (II) M.P. Weekly Notes, Note no. 45 has held that" We have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. This we have done to remined the various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps atleast two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the rules/instructions are followed strictly much of the litigati on can be avoided and retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time schedule prescribed in the rules/ instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. The case before us is a clear example of department delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30-4-1993 and it was only after 12-2-1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and. started work by sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30-3-93 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the department in as much as the rules and instructions requires these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise winch was to be completed long before retirement was infact started long after the petitioner's retirement." 28. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cited' above, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the interest on the amount of his retiral benefits. He is also entitled to receive the interest on all the amounts of his retiral benefits after a period of two months from the date of his retirement i.e. from 1-6-94. It is most important and pertinent to note that the respondents have totally failed to prove that the applicant was responsible for non-payment of his retiral benefits in due time and the retiral benefits of the applicant were not given to the applicant within two months of his retirement in view of any negligence or fault of the applicant. 29. It is most important and pertinent to note that the respondents have totally failed to prove that the applicant was responsible for non-payment of his retiral benefits in due time and the retiral benefits of the applicant were not given to the applicant within two months of his retirement in view of any negligence or fault of the applicant. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is hereby ordered that the applicant be paid (a) 6% interest on the amount of difference of pension i.e. Rs.96,497/- from 1-6-94 to 5-10-98. (b) 6% interest on the amount of commuted pension i.e. on Rs. 39.162/- from 1-6-94 to 5-10-98. (c) 6% interest on the amount of gratuity i.e. on Rs.37,422/- from 1-6-94 to 5-10-98. (d) The amount of his G.P.F. with interest @ 6% from 1-6-94 alongwith the regular interest of G.P..F. till the date of payment. (e) The amount of his leave encashment with interest @ 6% on the above amount from 1-6-94 till the date of payment. (f) 6% interest on the amount of family benefit from 1-6-94 till the date of payment. (g) Entire T.A. bill pending before the Collector as has been mentioned in return of the respondents alongwith 6% interest from 1-6-94 till the date of payment and (h) The amount of arrears of increment of pay for the year 1991 to 1993 with 6% interest. 30. The above payments be made to the applicant within a period of three months of receipt of this order. 31. Before I part with this order, I would like to mention that inspite of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the delay is caused in settling the claim of the government employees without any fault of the employee concerned with the result the government has to suffer and public money is wasted without just and proper causes by payment of heavy interest by the Govt. as a result of negligent, employees, so, it is a fit case where a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh Govt. and Principal Secretary of Revenue Deptt. of Chhattisgarh Govt. to take necessary action against the concerned officer/officers for belated/non-payment of retiral benefits to the applicant. The attention of the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue Deptt. is drawn towards the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court - Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta; AIR 1994 SC 787. and Principal Secretary of Revenue Deptt. of Chhattisgarh Govt. to take necessary action against the concerned officer/officers for belated/non-payment of retiral benefits to the applicant. The attention of the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary, Revenue Deptt. is drawn towards the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court - Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta; AIR 1994 SC 787. 32. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court - Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (supra) I am also of the opinion that to avoid further litigation for belated payment, the Chief Secretary may issue necessary instruction to all the departments of Chhattisgarh Govt. to follow the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court- Uma Agrawal (Dr.) Vs. State of U.P, (supra), so that the Govt. should not suffer a loss of huge amount due to negligence or wilful action on the fault of duty by an officer or employee. It is not to be forgotten that it is the tax payers money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under any law or responsible to discharge their duties in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition Allowed.