Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 458 (RAJ)

Mohd. Siddiqui v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-09

R.P.VYAS, RAJESH BALIA

body2006
Honble BALIA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). From the material on record, the facts which emerge are that the petitioner retired from the service under the Department of Primary and Secondary Education on attaining the age of superannuation after serving the Department for almost 37 years and he had to wait for more than 4 years for getting his retiral dues that too after intervention of this Court. Notwithstanding there being clear provision for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues, no interest was paid on the delayed payment of retiral dues. (3). It was rather unfortunate that without going into merits of the case and apathy of the lowly paid Government servant after retirement, the petition was dismissed in limine by observing that the petitioner can seek his remedy by way of filing civil suit vide judgment under appeal, which has led to this appeal. (4). According to the facts emerging from the record, the petitioner submitted pension paper in July, 1996. On 16.9.1996 certificate was issued by the concerned authority that no enquiry is pending against the incumbent nor any enquiry is contemplated against him. (5). The papers for release of pension were not moved by the Parent Department until 12.6.1998. It is for the first time that the Parent Department forwarded the papers for release of pension to the Pension Department which was received by the Pension Department on 29.6.1998. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1042/1998 which was disposed of by this Court on 2.7.1998 directing the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner for retiral benefits within three months from the date of issuance of certified copy of the order. Inspite of this order, it has taken almost two years to finalise the pension case of the petitioner. (6). From the reply submitted by the Pension Department, it appears that on 12.6.1998 the Parent Department for the first time forwarded the pension papers i.e. almost after two years of retirement of the petitioner. That too were not complete. Therefore, on 17.7.1998, the Pension Department returned the papers to be resubmitted after completing the same. The complete papers were returned only on 29.5.2000 exactly after 2 and 1/2 years from the date papers were returned for submission after completing the papers. There is no explanation for this delay on the part of the respondents. That too were not complete. Therefore, on 17.7.1998, the Pension Department returned the papers to be resubmitted after completing the same. The complete papers were returned only on 29.5.2000 exactly after 2 and 1/2 years from the date papers were returned for submission after completing the papers. There is no explanation for this delay on the part of the respondents. After papers were resent by the Education Department, the first order was made on 21.6.1998. Finding some error, amended pension order was issued on 24.7.2000. Undoubtedly, the Education Department has submitted its reply in order to exclude itself from the responsibility of delay in deciding the pension case. (7). Under the Pension Rules as were prevalent under the Rajasthan Service Rules before commencement of separate Pension Rules of 1996 and under the Rules of 1996 also, the Education Department or for that matter every Department is under an obligation to start preparation of pension papers atleast 2 years before the date of age of approaching superannuation of any incumbent. The Rules have been framed only to see that as on the date the incumbent retires, he gets his retiral dues promptly. If the employees are required to work to the satisfaction of the employer, the employer too is under an obligation to satisfactorily discharge its obligation towards its employees so that they do not have to run from pillar to post to get their retiral dues which is not a bounty, but a just reward for the services rendered. (8). In this connection, we may draw attention to Rule 280 of the Rajasthan Service Rules as it existed on the date of retirement of the petitioner. It provides that every head of Department shall have a list prepared every six months, i.e., on the 2st January and the 2st July each year of all gazetted and non- gazetted Government servants who are due to retire within the next two years of that date. A copy of every such list shall be supplied to the Director, Pension Department not later than 31st January or the 31.07.as the case may be, of that year. In the case of persons retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of Department shall promptly inform the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan as soon as the impending retirement becomes known to him. Rule 281 provides for procedure for submission of formal application of pension. In the case of persons retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of Department shall promptly inform the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan as soon as the impending retirement becomes known to him. Rule 281 provides for procedure for submission of formal application of pension. (9). Rules 280 and 281 read together leads to reasonable conclusion that it is the duty of the head of the Department to prepare a list of the employees who are due to retire within the next two years of that date and not for the retiring employee to apply. (10). Rules 286 and 292 of the Rules of 1951 clearly postulate that a non-gazetted Government servant should begin to draw pension from the date he retires from service irrespective of whether pension papers have been prepared and sent to the Director, Pension Department, Rajasthan for issue of pension or not. In cases where pension papers have not been prepared and sent to the Director, Pension Department, the Head of office shall after the most careful summary investigation, authorise payment of provisional pension to the extent of 75% of the maximum amount of pension and also of the gratuity to which he is entitled under the rules. If the pension papers have been prepared and sent to the Director, Pension Department, before the date of retirement of a Government servant, the payment of provisional pension not exceeding the maximum amount of pension and 75% of the gratuity to which he is entitled under these Rules shall be sanctioned. (11). In the present case, there is clear assertion by the petitioner in para 17 of the writ petition which has not been denied that notwithstanding making prayer for release of provisional pension under the Rules of 1996 in the July, 1996 soon after he retired, the same was not released in his favour. (12). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 made it clear that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but are valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate commences at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. (13). On the same principle, finding that there was culpable delay on the part of sanctioning authority, the Honble Supreme in the case of S. Saleema Bi vs. S. Pyari Begum and anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3513 directed payment of interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of retirement of the incumbent until the date of payment. (14). This Court in the case of B.L. Agarwal vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR 2001(3) 768 following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (supra) in like circumstances observed that there is no reason for not making the payment for years together. Therefore, the respondents were to pay interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. from the date of retirement till respective payments have been made to the appellant. (15). There is another Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in the case of Mohan Lal Rajpurohit vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005(3) WLC (Raj.) 648. In the said case, the Court observed that the learned Single Judge was not correct in relegating the appellant to the remedy of civil suit and awarded interest @ 18% per annum. (16). As we have noticed above from the fact that there has been culpable negligence on the part of the respondents in granting retiral benefits and making the available to the petitioner in so much so that even provisional pension release of which as on the date of retirement was statutory duty of the respondents was not granted notwithstanding making prayer in that regard. (17). This makes the petitioner entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. The rate of interest when the appellant retired was much higher than the current rate of interest. In the aforesaid circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to pay interest @ 10% with effect from the date of retirement till the date of actual payment. The cost of this litigation shall be borne by the respondents which we quantity as Rs. 5,000/-. (18). The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with cost as aforesaid.