Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 59 (HP)

SML LACHHI DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-03-17

B.S.CHAUHAN, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2006
JUDGEMENT Narinder Thakur, Vice Chairman: The applicant is a widow of late Sh. Chattar Singh, who retired from Police Department He expired on 22.4.1998 and thereafter the applicant was entitled for full family pension which is not being granted to her by the respondents and she had to file this original application in the year 2001 for the grant of the same. After notices were issued to the Accountant General who is a party as respondent No.4 released a part of the family pension 15.10.2001. The delay on the part of the respondents is quite pathetic towards the applicant and it is sadly noticed that respondents have been passing buch and blames to each other. Respondent No 4 has laid whole blame on respondent department by saying that respondent department has not made desired information available to them and as such the delay has been caused. On the other hand in the Supplementary Affidavit dated 13.10.2004 the respondent department has shifted the blame on pension disbursing authority. 2. This is very unfortunate and callousness, on the part of respondents towards the family of their own employee which cannot at all be appreciated. 3. In the State of Kerala and others vs. M. Padmanathan Nair reported in AIR SC 356 the Honble Apex Court has held that: "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." It has further been held that "The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be ever emphasised and it would not be un-reasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement." 4. In Vijay Lal Mahrotra vs. State of UP and others (2001) 9 SCC 687 the Honble Apex Court it has been observed that: "The appellant retired from service on 31.8.1997. From the respondent filed by respondent, it is clear that most of payment of the retiral benefit to her were made long after she retired on 31.8.1997. The details of the payment so made are as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount paid Date i) GPF 90% Rs. 1,80,899.00 27.11.1997 ii) GPF 10% Rs. 20,751.00 25.4.1998 iii) GIS Rs. From the respondent filed by respondent, it is clear that most of payment of the retiral benefit to her were made long after she retired on 31.8.1997. The details of the payment so made are as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount paid Date i) GPF 90% Rs. 1,80,899.00 27.11.1997 ii) GPF 10% Rs. 20,751.00 25.4.1998 iii) GIS Rs. 13,379.00 27.2.1998 iv) Encashment of leave Rs. 41,358.00 27.9.1998 (v) Arrears of pay Rs. 15,495.00 27.9.1998 (Vi) Gratuity Rs. 1,09,75.00 5.12.1998 (Vii) Commuted pension Rs. 20,484.00 5.12.1998 (Viii) Detained amount Rs. 45,000.00 5.11.1999 5.In case of an employees retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter if for some unforseen circumstances the payment could not be made on the date of retirement." In has further been observed that "In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payment for months together. We therefore, direct the respondents to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18% with effect from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.8.1997 till the date of payment" 6 Notwithstanding as per the own admission of the respondent department in the affidavit the applicant is entitled for a monthly pension of Rs.1421/-. So far she has been paid only Rs.545/- per Month. The respondent department is directed to take steps necessary for release of remaining portion of the pension alongwith arrears within four weeks from the date of this order. Be it clarified herewith that looking to the delay already caused by the respondents department and with a view to ensure implementation of this order, the department will depute a special person to comply these orders within four weeks. 7. The principal Bench of this Tribunal while disposing of a similar matter in the Original Application No. 861 of 1997 titled as Dhani Devi vs. State of HP has already granted interest @ Rs.12%. We also order accordingly, that the applicant shall also be entitled for interest @ Rs.12% Per Annum on arrears from due date till the date of payment 8. The original application stands finally disposed of in the light of above. No order as to cost.