Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1156 (ALL)

Ram Badan Dubey v. State Of U. P.

2002-09-03

A.K.YOG

body2002
JUDGMENT : - A. K. Yog, J. 1. HEARD Sri Ram Badan Dubey, petitioner (in person), and the learned standing counsel, Sri Abhinav Upadhyay, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents. 2. THE petitioner worked as Assistant Teacher in a recognized Educational Institution, called Agrasen Inter College, Allahabad, in L.T. Grade w.e.f. 1954. He was given notice dated 11.2.1985 that he shall attain 60 years and superannuating on 30th June, 1985. Petitioner challenged said notice contending that he was entitled to continue in service up to June 30, 1986. It appears the aforesaid issue became the cause of dispute between the petitioner and the respondents (college management as well as educational authorities) as a result thereof petitioner filed Original Suit No. 331 of 1985 in the Court of Munsif for declaration that he was entitled to continue in service till June, 1986. Said suit was decreed with cost by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.1988 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) with the direction to pay all privileges/ arrears, etc. within 40 days and cost of Rs. 500. It appears the defendant judgment debtor filed time barred appeal along with an application to condone the delay. The appellate court rejected the application for condonation of delay, vide judgment and order dated January 27, 1990/Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. PETITIONER filed a representation/application before the concerned District Inspector of Schools dated 1.12.2000/Annexure-3 to the writ petition referring to the earlier registered letter sent in the month of January, 1998 and reminder dated February, 1998 for payment of balance of amount of pension and Group Insurance and claimed 18% interest on the delayed payment of pension of Rs. 1,56,693 which he received on 13.12.1997 and similarly interest on other amounts of delayed payment roughly for 11 and 1/2 years at the rate of 18% bank rate. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the Rs. 4,14,300 upon delayed payment of pension Group Insurance, Provident Fund amount @ 18% bank rate, which undisputedly were received by him after 11 and 1/2 years. In the said application, he also mentioned that some revisions were filed against order passed against the respondent and on that pretext he was denied payment. 4,14,300 upon delayed payment of pension Group Insurance, Provident Fund amount @ 18% bank rate, which undisputedly were received by him after 11 and 1/2 years. In the said application, he also mentioned that some revisions were filed against order passed against the respondent and on that pretext he was denied payment. PETITIONER also categorically contended that recourse was taken to litigation for denying lawful relief/claim of the petitioner in the matter and with that object in mind appeal/revisions were never filed in time and rather they were time barred only in order to find an excuse not to vindicate the rightful claim of the petitioner. PETITIONER also mentioned that he and his wife/family members suffered because of obstinate approach of the department including the marriage of his daughter which remained pending for some years and the amount received from his provident fund was exhausted in repaying loans. 4. IT appears no action was taken by the departmental authorities hence petitioner was constrained to file present writ petition. Pleadings contained in the writ petition show that petitioner got his money on 13.12.1997 when decree in favour of the petitioner was put in execution and attachment proceedings were also initiated by the civil court. This goes to show that department did not honour the civil court decree, compelling the petitioner to put the same for execution and coercive measures taken when jeep belonging to the office of District Inspector of Schools was attached. In the instant case, stand taken by the petitioner is that he was to attain age of superannuation on June 30, 1986 and his stand was fully vindicated when ultimately upheld by the civil court vide judgment and decree referred to above. The stand taken by the department and the management of the college was not sustained. Against the trial court judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed as time barred. As the record stands, this litigation between the parties remained pending from the year 1985 to 1990. Once appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed in the year 1990, petitioner had to apply for the execution of the decree passed by the civil court. Attachment of the jeep of the office of the District Inspector of Schools, probably and court presumes, precipitated payment of a sum of Rs. Once appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed in the year 1990, petitioner had to apply for the execution of the decree passed by the civil court. Attachment of the jeep of the office of the District Inspector of Schools, probably and court presumes, precipitated payment of a sum of Rs. 2,56,693 on 13.12.1997 (as also mentioned in the computation sheet filed along with supplementary counter-affidavit sworn by Sri Ganesh Kumar dated 28.8.2002. 5. AFORESAID facts are necessary to test the veracity of the contention made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that petitioner was himself guilty of non-cooperation and to delay finalisation of payment by not submitting requisite forms and papers to ensure payment of post-retiral benefits. From the facts already noted by the Court earlier, it is clear that petitioner can-not be blamed for negligence or non-co-operation for non-payment of the post retiral benefits. 6. APART from the above, this Court notices that record shows that the respondents and their authorities unduly harassed the petitioner and specific pleadings in the writ petition have not been denied by filing regular counter-affidavit. Respondents were afforded opportunity and time to file a counter-affidavit was given to deny those facts contained in various paragraphs of the writ petition. The respondents, advised, did not avail the opportunity to rebut specific averments of the petitioner (regarding harassment at the behest of the respondents) even though they chose to file several affidavits in rebuttal, in the shape of short counter-affidavits and supplementary counter-affidavits. The Court is thus, left with no option but to conclude that the petitioner was denied payment of his post-retiral benefits, Group Insurance. Provident Fund for no reasonable excuse or justification. 7. ON the admitted facts, petitioner received approximately Rs. 2,57,000 on 13.12.1997 i.e., after about 11 and 1/2 years because of the pension and other amounts (as post-retiral benefits) became due for payment since July, 1986 and thereafter. 8. THE Court takes judicial notice of the fact that from 1986 till 1997, current market rate available in the nationalised bank was generally 12% per annum simple interest. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to 'Interest' on the aforesaid amount. Again, it accumulated from July, 1986 till December, 1997. The Court required both the petitioner and the respondents to submit their calculations but found them not satisfactory. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to 'Interest' on the aforesaid amount. Again, it accumulated from July, 1986 till December, 1997. The Court required both the petitioner and the respondents to submit their calculations but found them not satisfactory. Hence, assistance was taken from the Section Officer of the Accounts Section, in the Registry of the High Court who has made calculations at the rate of 12% per annum simple interest on the respective amount which became due (on month to month) basis for a period of 11 years only (excluding six months period). According to the said calculation, interest comes to a sum of Rs. 1,44,226-53 (say Rs. 1,44,227). The said calculations are annexed and treated as part of the record of the case. 9. THE aforesaid amount of interest (viz. Rs. 1,44,227) should have been paid to the petitioner while principal amount of Rs. 2,57,000 was paid to him on 13.12.1997. THE aforesaid amount of interest, admittedly, not paid in December, 1997 the petitioner, is further entitled to the interest on the said amount of interest (treating it as a principal amount) at the rate of 10% per annum simple interest for a period of 5 years. THE said amount according to the calculation made by the accounts section of the High Court, comes to Rs. 72,114. 10. WHILE awarding interest for the period 1998 to 2002, Court has taken into account the current market rate prescribed by the nationalised bank on the fixed deposits carrying market interest (i.e., beyond 36 months). It will be noted that Court has adopted a general criterion for awarding interest at the rate of 10% simple interest keeping in mind that no interest amount is being given to the petitioner on the amount of Provident Fund, and Group Insurance amount. 11. THIS Court, thus finds that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,16,341. 12. PETITIONER at the end submitted that he has spent Rs, 3,000 towards cost of present litigation and I find said amount to be very reasonable. The petitioner is entitled to the cost of litigation and accordingly I also award Rs. 3,000 as cost. In the result, I direct the respondents, severally and jointly, to ensure payment of a total sum of Rs. 2,19,342 (2,16,342+3,000) to the petitioner by means of an account payee bank draft within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 3,000 as cost. In the result, I direct the respondents, severally and jointly, to ensure payment of a total sum of Rs. 2,19,342 (2,16,342+3,000) to the petitioner by means of an account payee bank draft within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 13. WRIT petition stands allowed subject to the directions given above. 14. CONSIDERING that petitioner has appeared in person and is a retired teacher, I direct that a certified copy of this judgment shall be given to him within two weeks on receipt of requisite application without payment of charge.