Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 850 (ALL)

N. P. SARABHAI v. STATE OF U. P.

2003-04-18

R.B.MISRA

body2003
R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this case, an interim order was passed on 17. 4. 2003 which reads as below : "heard Sri Vipin Saxena learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appeared for the respondent. The petitioner while working as Revenue Inspector in Nagar Palika, Aligarh retired on 31. 3. 1985 but he has not been paid his pension and gratuity, etc. since then. Thereafter the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1993. According to Annexure-C. A.-1 to the counter-affidavit, the director of Local Bodies, U. P. Lucknow vide order dated 29. 7. 1994 ordered that the post retirement benefit shall be paid to the petitioner from 1. 4. 1985 to 30. 4. 1994 i. e. , after a lapse of nine years. The petitioner is aggrieved that his due money along with interest has not been paid and he has not enjoyed his retirement benefits. List the writ petition tomorrow as unlisted matter. " ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Anr. , 1999 (2) AWC 1486 (SC) : (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1006, wherein retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner after a delay of 3 and 1/2 months. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court finding, the State Government was responsible to prepare necessary papers to give retiral benefits awarded interest of rupees one lack. ( 3 ) IT was observed in S. R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and Ors. , AIR 1997 SC 27 , that the government had defaulted in making payments of the post retiral benefits despite the demands consistently made by the employee and the State Government was directed to pay rupees two lacs towards interest, compensation and litigation expenses. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I find that the petitioner was retired on 31. 3. 1985 and despite sincere efforts made by the petitioner, the Director, Local Bodies U. P. had sanctioned the post retrial benefits only on 29. 7. 1994 after about nine years. This was a serious lapse on the part of the State Government. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the state Government is directed to pay towards the interest, exemplary cost, cost of litigation and lump sum amount of Rs. 7. 1994 after about nine years. This was a serious lapse on the part of the State Government. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the state Government is directed to pay towards the interest, exemplary cost, cost of litigation and lump sum amount of Rs. 60,000 to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is conveyed to the respondents. ( 5 ) THE amendment application is not considered at this stage. The petitioner is allowed to give a representation along with certified copy of this order to the Director, Local Bodies, U. P. for getting one month pay and gratuity and the Director, Local Bodies is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order expeditiously, within one month from the date of receipt of the order and if he fails to do so, the petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court for taking appropriate remedy. ( 6 ) IN view of the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. .