Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 373 (HP)

Amar Singh v. Union of India

2008-07-24

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in C.R.P.F. as Water Carrier on 19.10.1982. He completed twenty years two months and thirteen days qualifying service on 31.12.2002. He applied for voluntary retirement to the competent authority on 28.4.2003. He was permitted to retire from service w.e.f. 1.3.2003 after expiry of three months’ notice given by him on 28.4.2003. He requested the office of respondent No. 3 to draw his monthly retiring pension through State Bank of India, Kandror. His pension proposal was forwarded to the P.A.O. vide office letter dated 2.8.2003. He was authorized to retiring/family pension and DCRG from 1.8.2003. The PPO was issued in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6 payable at State Bank of India, Kandror Branch in his account vide SSA dated 29.10.2003. He made a representation to the respondent for release of his pension on 10.3.2004. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that thereafter State Bank of India, Kandror Branch informed the Department that it has not received the original SSA and other documents vide letter dated 22.9.2004. It has come in the reply filed by respondents No. 5 and 6 that when the petitioner approached the Branch Office of respondent No. 6 in November 2003 and enquired about his pension, he was informed that the Pension Payment Order, i.e. PPO was not received from the competent authority. The duplicate PPO was issued on 24.6.2005 and thereafter, the case of the petitioner was processed by the respondent-Bank and after processing the papers, pension as well as commuted value of pension as authorized was released to him on 3.8.2005. 2. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client is entitled to the interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the retrial benefits. 3. Ms. Shilpa Sood, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has strenuously argued that the authorities in question are not responsible for the delay in release of retrial benefits since according to her, authorities had prepared the PPO and it was sent to the Bank. 4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6 had submitted that since the Bank had not received any PPO, pension could not be released and the duplicate PPO was issued only on 24.6.2005. 4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6 had submitted that since the Bank had not received any PPO, pension could not be released and the duplicate PPO was issued only on 24.6.2005. The case of the petitioner was processed and his pension and other retrial benefits were released. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 6. The petitioner has sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.3.2003. The PPO was prepared on the basis of which the pension and other retrial benefits were to be paid to him. In fact, the PPO never reached the respondents No. 5 and 6. He visited the respondent No. 6, State Bank of India Branch in the month of November 2003. He was apprised by the staff of the Bank that since the PPO has not been received, his pension could not be released. He made a representation on 10.3.2004. The Bank has also taken up the matter with the Department on 22.9.2004. It was only on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner and initiative taken by the respondents No. 5 and 6 that duplicate PPO was issued on 24.6.2005. He received the pension and commuted value of pension on 3.8.2005 after his case was processed by the Bank. It was for the respondents No. 1 to 4 to ensure that the PPO reached the respondents No. 5 and 6 within time. The petitioner was held entitled to pension w.e.f. 1.8.2003. He has to wait for his pension and commutation value of pension for a period of one year and ten months. 7. Ms. Shilpa Sood has argued on the basis of the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 that the original PPO was misplaced in the transit by the Bank and no liability can be fastened on her client. She further contended that it was the duty of the respondents 5 and 6 to inform the respondents 1 to 4 immediately. The contention of Ms. Shilpa Sood is liable to be rejected. It was for respondents No. 1 to 4 to ensure, as noticed above, that the PPO reached the Bank immediately after its issuance. She further contended that it was the duty of the respondents 5 and 6 to inform the respondents 1 to 4 immediately. The contention of Ms. Shilpa Sood is liable to be rejected. It was for respondents No. 1 to 4 to ensure, as noticed above, that the PPO reached the Bank immediately after its issuance. It was only on the basis of the matter being taken by respondents No. 5 and 6 and by the petitioner through his representation dated 10.3.2004 that the authorities took action and have issued the duplicate PPO on 24.6.2005. The petitioner cannot be permitted to suffer due to negligent lapse on the part of respondents No. 1 to 4. The retrial benefits are to be paid promptly to every employee. 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 have held that delay in settlement of retrial benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all cost. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: “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 various governmental departments of their duties in initiating various steps atleast 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 in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been consistently awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent on delayed retrial benefits. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases 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.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been consistently awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent on delayed retrial benefits. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 328 have held as under: “Normally, this Court, as a settled practice, has been making direction for payment of interest at 12% on delayed payment of pension. There is no reason for us to depart from that practice in the facts of the present case.” 10. In the present case, there is a delay of one year and ten months in releasing the pension/retrial benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner is in no manner responsible for this delay. The delay has not been explained by the respondents No. 1 to 4. The petitioner is entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the delayed payment of retrial benefits. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the petitioner interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.8.2003 to 3.8.2005 for delayed payments within a period of eight weeks from today. No order as to costs.