Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2417 (ALL)

KRISHNA MOHAN VERMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2005-12-05

RAKESH TIWARI

body2005
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay Rs. 19,494.00 along with 18% interest towards leave encashment for 286 days due to him after his retirement. 3. The petitioner retired on 30th June, 1994 as Prasar Adhyapak from Junior High School Matthee Tikur District Unnao. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao vide letter dated 16.12.96 requested respondent No. 2, Director Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad to sanction payment of the aforesaid amount of the petitioner towards leave encashment but no approval was granted by him. The petitioner in the circumstances had moved many representations, which have remained unactioned till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was no reason for non-payment of retiral dues of the petitioner and the respondents are unnecessarily harassing him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 does not dispute this fact that the petitioner has not been paid leave encashment as claimed by him. He, however, submits that after the order dated 20.5.2004 passed by this Court, on the writ petition, the petitioner has been paid the amount due towards leave encashment on 7th May, 2005 through Treasury cheque No. 400210. He further submits that the delay in payment of the aforesaid amount has occurred as the Director Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad is the drawing and disbursing authority who did not accord sanction for payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. 6. The standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that delay in payment of the aforesaid amount has occurred because the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao had not sent papers of the petitioner in time and when they had been sent they were incomplete. In short both the counsels for respondents have blamed the other for non-payment/delay in payment of retiral dues of the petitioner. 7. The State Government has issued a G.O. dated 13th December, 1977 by which the offices of the State Government have been directed to complete all the formalities regarding payment of retiral dues etc. of an employee at least 6 months prior to the date of his retirement to enable him to get his retiral dues/benefits on the date of his retirement. of an employee at least 6 months prior to the date of his retirement to enable him to get his retiral dues/benefits on the date of his retirement. Neither the direction issued by the State Government contained in the aforesaid G.O. appears to have been followed with letter and spirit nor the respondents took any action on the representations of the petitioner and the matter of payment of leave encashment has got delayed because of the vagaries of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 8. An employee who retires from service has normally no income to fall back upon to meet his liabilities. The retiral dues, are only source of livelihood available to him to live with some dignity and non-payment of these is directly hit by Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. The State Government is Welfare State and can not be permitted to make windfall gain of interest on the amount of retiral dues of an employee. When the petitioner retired on 30th June, 1994, admittedly a sum of Rs. 19,494.00 was due on that date to be paid to him towards leave encashment. The aforesaid amount was not paid to him even after filing of the writ petition and was only paid to him after intervention of the Court vide interim order dated 20.5.2004 which compelled the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 19,494.00 through cheque No. 400210 on 7th May, 2005. It is the duty of the department to ensure that all the formalities regarding payment of retiral dues are completed and paper of the retiring employees are sent for payment in time so that the employee is able to plan his retirement and his retiral dues are available to him on or before the date he attains the age of superannuation and not at a later time. 10. If the papers were sent by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao or were not in order, the Director, Basic Education, U.P. Allahabad should have immediately taken remedial steps directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to send complete papers. The lethargy of the two departments long delay in payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner is unpardonable. It is for the department to sort-out any dispute between them in this regard. Interest is normally accredition on the principal amount. 12. The lethargy of the two departments long delay in payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner is unpardonable. It is for the department to sort-out any dispute between them in this regard. Interest is normally accredition on the principal amount. 12. The petitioner had already approached the respondents several times and had represented them for payment but no action whatsoever was taken by the respondents to mitigate his hardship for the reasons best known to them. 13. An authority in power has to be sympathetic and is expected to lend a helping hand to a retired employee who has given a substantial part of his life to the service of the department. 14. The Government/Department cannot thrive upon windfall gain made by it by non-payment of retiral dues for long period and therefore making payment to the employee after he wins long drawn battle in the Court. 15. To protect the weak, remove arbitrariness and ensure that damage by illegal action of the Government/State or its instrumentalities are creased by iron hand is the object of establishment of system for delivery of justice through Courts. It is with this pious object the framers of the Constitution have given a high pedestal to independent of judiciary. 16. Delay in payment of retiral dues was not due to any fault of the petitioner but he was made to ran from pillar to post and could get the amount of leave encashment due to him on 30.6.94 without interest only on 7th May, 2005 after intervention of the Court. 17. The lending rate of interest by banks in 1994 was high and by now the amount due to the petitioner must have been more than tripled if he had been timely paid the amount. 18. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not only liable to receive compound interest at the rate of 18% from erring officials/officers but is also entitled 6% penal interest. At this stage Sri Gaus Beg states that interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of Rs. 19,494.00 paid to the petitioner does not inspire any confidence as the respondents have not filed any document in support of this contention. The counsel for the petitioner disputes payment of 6% interest. 19. At this stage Sri Gaus Beg states that interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of Rs. 19,494.00 paid to the petitioner does not inspire any confidence as the respondents have not filed any document in support of this contention. The counsel for the petitioner disputes payment of 6% interest. 19. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court and payment has been made to him after about 10 years and that too on a direction of this Court, the petition is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed with directions to the respondents : (I) To pay compound interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 19,494.00 at the rate of 18% to be calculated from the date of retirement of the petitioner i.e. 30th June, 1994 up to the date of payment with 6% penal interest within a period of six weeks from today. (II) Any interest paid on aforesaid amount of Rs. 19,494.00 to the petitioner may be adjusted in the amount of interest now to be paid to the petitioner under this order. (III) The amount of interest shall be paid by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Unnao to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. (IV) Cost of litigation is assessed as Rs. 5000/- to be paid by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner within a month for making the petitioner run from pillar to post for retiral benefits without any justifiable cause. 20. In case of default of any of these the recovery shall be made personally from the erring officials as arrears of land revenue within one month and thereafter shall be paid to the petitioner forthwith within a week of its recovery Petition Allowed. ———