Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 215 (JK)

Sansar Chand v. State Of J. &K.

2003-07-19

Y.P.NARGOTRA

body2003
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 remind the variois G overnment departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement.If the rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation 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 spirit.Delay in settlement of the retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs.Such delays are occuring even in regard to family pensions fore which too there is a prescribed procedure.This is indeed unfortunate.In case 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 above observations were made by their lordships of the supreme court in case entitled Dr. Uma Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1999 SC 1212. The petitioner retired from the post of Nursing Orderly on 31.12.1997, after attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, but retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been settled so far.The petitioner thus has filed this petition. 2. Admittedly at the time of retirement the petitioner was serving as a Nursing Orderly in Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.The petitioner initially was appointed as laboratory Bearer on 4.2.1962, a class IV post, carrying the payscale of Rs. 2. Admittedly at the time of retirement the petitioner was serving as a Nursing Orderly in Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.The petitioner initially was appointed as laboratory Bearer on 4.2.1962, a class IV post, carrying the payscale of Rs. 25-1-30(Old).The post of Nursing Orderly also carries the same pay scale and the nature of duties of both the posts were identical.When the pension case was submitted to respondent No. 5, Accountant General, the office of the Accountant General vide letter No.PWRJ-I/SIE/97-98/3003-04 dated 29.1.1998 raised an objection and the Medical Suprintendent Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar was asked to clarify the position.The abovesaid letter reads as under:- ".....Therefore, you are requested to clarify that since the retiree was initially appointed as Lab.bearer and his designation subsequently changed to Nursing Orderly but the post of lab bearer has not clarified inferior service as per schedule-II of J&K CSR rules, then how he has been retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years.However, provisional pension has been authorised in favour of the retired Government servant to mitigate hardships." 3. The Medical Suprintendent Govt. Hospital Gandhi Nagar in response to the abovesaid letter from the office of the Accountant General clarified the position under his letter No. 2566 dated 28.3.1998, which is as follows:- "Kindly refer to your office letter No.PNRJ/SIE/97-98/3003-04 dated 29.1.1998 on the subject cited above.In this connection it is stated that the retiree namely Sansar Chand was appointed as Laboratory bearer on 4.2.1966 and subsequently was transferred and posted as Nursing Orderly on 1.2.1983.The designation of Laboratory Bearer was changed as Laboratory Boy/Laboratory attendant which has been clarified as per schedule II of J&K CSR Rules.As some more posts n inferior service in the Health Department like Khidmatgar, office bearer etc were designated as Nursing Orderly respectively.Since the retiree was appointed before 10.10.1966 and the post of Laboratory Boy/Laboratory Bearer was as such he was retired on attaining the age of 60 years as per schedule II of J&K CSR rules. It is therefore requested that the withheld pensionary benefits whatsoever admissible to the retiree may kindly be authorised in his favour under an intimation to this office." 4. It is therefore requested that the withheld pensionary benefits whatsoever admissible to the retiree may kindly be authorised in his favour under an intimation to this office." 4. Despite the abovesaid clarification, the pension case of the petitioner was not cleared.When the petitioner represented, the Government vide letter No.H.268/98-NG dated 27.1.1999 wrote to Director Health Services Jammu to furnish a copy of Accountant Generals abovesaid letter dated 29.1.1998.Thereafter nothing has been done in the matter. 5. After admission of the writ petition, vide court order dated 23.4.2001 notice was issued to the respondents. The state has not filed counter despite sufficient oppurtunity in this behalf and even an oppurtunity on payment of costs of Rs. 3000/- as well. However, counter affidavit/objections on behalf of respondent No. 5 i.e. Accountant General, have been filed. In the counter respondent No. 5 has taken the stand that respondent No. 4 has been asked repeatedly to furnish the requisite information but no reply has been received therefrom. It has further been averred in the counter that the post of school Mother/Callers of the Education Department were not prescribed as inferior service but the state Government, Finance Department vide letter No. A/13(018-493) dated 14.6.1999, has directed the office of respondent No. 5 for trating the said posts as inferior service. So far as the post of Lab.Bearer is concerned no such order or direction from the state Government or the Finance Depoartment has been received by respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 5 has no objection in granting pensionary benefits to the petitioner by reckoning the age of superannuation as to 60 years, if such orders are issued by the state Government. 6. 6. From the stand taken by respondent No. 5, it appears that the pension case of the petitioner has not been sett led because the state has not taken any decision as to whether the post of Nursing Orderly should be declared as inferior service as desribed in schedule-II of C.S.R. The post of Laboratory Bearer to which the petitioner was initially appointed and the post of Nursing Orderly, from which the petitioner has retired, carries the same pay scale, therefore, ex-facie there does not appear any reason for not declaring the post of Nursing Orderly as inferior service and the state Government has been declaring certain posts as inferior service within the meaning of schedule II of C.S.R as has been done in the case of school Mothers/callers of the Education Department, as stated by respondent No.5 in his counter affidavit.It can also be done in favour of petitioners post. 7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Government has not taken any decision in this behalf and consequently the pension case of the petitioner has not been settled.In this view of the matter the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that respondents 1&2 shall take a decision in the matter of declaration of the post of Nursing Orderly, held by the petitioner at the time of his retirement, to be an inferior service and communicate the same to respondent No. 5, the accountant General, who shall accordingly settle the pension case of the petitioner. This whole exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. 8. Since the exercise which is to be completed now should have been completed long before the retirement of the petitioner, therefore, it is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner on the withheld amount.It is accordingly directed that the petitioner shall also be paid 9% P.A.interest on the withheld amount, from the date of retirement, till the date of actual payment, after settlement of his pension case. The petitioner is also held entitled to costs, qualified at Rs.1000/-. Disposed of accordingly.