Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3620 (ALL)

RAJESHWAR SWARUP GUPTA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-12-01

PANKAJ MITHAL, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The present Writ Petition has been filed making the following prayers: “(a) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay 18% per annum interest on the pension and retiral benefits i.e. pension, gratuity, GPF and other dues from 1.8.1988 to the actual date of payment and the amount of GIS arrears of pay of the petitioner within a forth-night in order the petitioner may be benefited during his life time. (b) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the physical and mental agony equivalent to the interest of retirement benefits. (c) Issue any other suitable Writ, order or direction to the respondents which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) To award the cost of the Writ Petition to the petitioner from the contesting respondents”. 2. From the averments made in the Writ Petition, it transpires that the petitioner served as an Officer of the Provincial Civil Services (Executive), and at the time of his retirement on 31.7.1988, the petitioner was posted as the Regional Manager of U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Limited, Moradabad. 3. In paragraph No. 7 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, stated that the petitioner had submitted the requisite papers of pension before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits in time. It is, inter alia, further stated in paragraph No. 7 of the Writ Petition that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not complete the requirement of pension papers in time, and they delayed for about four years in submitting the same before the respondent No. 2. 4. It is,inter alia, further stated in paragraph No. 9 of the Writ Petition that after receiving the pension papers from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by the respondent No. 2, the same were wrongly sent to the Directorate of Pension, Lucknow for sanction, and the same were returned with the instructions dated 8.12.1992 that for the sanction of pension and other retiral benefits, the papers should be sent to the Accountant General, Allahabad. 5. 3 and 4 by the respondent No. 2, the same were wrongly sent to the Directorate of Pension, Lucknow for sanction, and the same were returned with the instructions dated 8.12.1992 that for the sanction of pension and other retiral benefits, the papers should be sent to the Accountant General, Allahabad. 5. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner made several representations for payment of pension and other retiral benefits but nothing was done in the matter. 6. In paragraph No. 15 of the Writ Petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he sent a letter dated 11.9.1999 (Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition) to the Deputy Secretary, Niyukti -2 Anubhag, U.P. Government, Lucknow, inter alia, requesting the latter to provide information asked for by the Accountant General, Allahabad (respondent No. 5). 7. In paragraph No. 16 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has stated as under: “That after passing a period of about 12 years from the date of retirement i.e. 31.7.1988 without any interest paid the retiral benefits by the respondents as under : Details of Sri Rajeshwar Swarup Gupta, PCS Selection Grade (Retd) date of retirement 31.7.1988. Sl. No. Particulars Amount paid Date of payment. 1. Gratuity Rs. 65175/- 9.12.2000 2. Pension Rs. 717499/- 9.12.2000 3. GPF 90% Rs. 23224 /- 9.3.2001 4. Detained arrears of pay Rs. 26040 / - 14/15.6.2001 Cheque Anubhag Karyalay Prokost Rs. 10720 Detained at the date of — State Government Rs. 20/- P.M. w.e.f. 1966 to 1968 plus interest Employee Rs. 40 p.m. w.e.f. 1969 to 3.9.1987 plus interest Group Insurance Scheme Rs. 80/- p.m. w.e.f. 4.9.1987 to 31.7.1988 plus interest.” 8. It will, thus, be noticed that while the petitioner retired on 31.7.1988, the payment of gratuity was made on 9.12.2000, payment of pension was made on 9.12.2000, payment of 90% GPF was made on 9.3.2001 and payment of 10% GPF was made on 14/15.6.2001. 9. Thus, retiral benefits have been paid to the petitioner after an inordinate delay of about 13 years. Certain other payments, as mentioned in paragraph No. 16 of the Writ Petition, inter alia, including Group Insurance Scheme, have not as yet been made to the petitioner. 10. By the order dated 9.11.2006, this Court issued an interim mandamus to each of the respondent Nos. Certain other payments, as mentioned in paragraph No. 16 of the Writ Petition, inter alia, including Group Insurance Scheme, have not as yet been made to the petitioner. 10. By the order dated 9.11.2006, this Court issued an interim mandamus to each of the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 requiring the said respondents “either to pay interest which may be payable according to law on the delayed payment of the post-retirement benefits to the petitioner i.e. Pension, Gratuity, GPF, Leave Encashment and GIS within two months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the concerned respondent Nos. 2, 3 or 5 or to show-cause by filing a counter-affidavit within the same period as to why payment of interest should not be directed by this Court against the said concerned respondent in this Writ Petition”. 11. Pursuant to the said order dated 9.11.2006, it appears that the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 5, were filed. 12. The petitioner has filed the Rejoinder-Affidavits in reply to the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and 2, and the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 13. As noted above, in paragraph No. 7 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner had submitted the requisite papers before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits in time. 14. A perusal of paragraph No. 5 of the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and paragraph No. 4 of the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, and also the Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, shows that in none of the said Counter-affidavits, the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the Writ Petition regarding the submission of requisite papers for payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits in time, have been disputed. 15. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner had completed all the requisite formalities for payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits in time, and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in this regard. 16. 15. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner had completed all the requisite formalities for payment of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits in time, and there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in this regard. 16. From the averments made in various Counter-affidavits, it appears that there was delay on the part of the respondents in providing necessary information to the relevant authorities and other procedural matters. This delay on the part of the respondents cannot evidently be attributed to the petitioner. 17. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents are responsible for inordinate delay in making the payments of pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits to the petitioner, therefore, the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioner with effect from the date of retirement at the rate of 12% per annum. 18. We may refer in this regard to the decision in Smt. Kavita Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 119 FLR 787 (DB), wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as under (paragraph No. 4): “The consistent view of the Apex Court is that for delayed payment of post-retiral benefits, interest should be awarded if it is found that the delay was caused due to inaction of the respondents. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: 1. State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356 (paras 2 and 3) 2. O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC) (para 24) 3. R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and another, (1995) 1 UPLBEC 89 (SC) (paras 9 and 10) 4. S.R. Bhanrate v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 27 (paras 4 and 5) 5. Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC) (paras 1, 2 and 5) 6. Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 (paras 3 and 4) 7. S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301 (SC) (para 11)” 19. Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC) (paras 1, 2 and 5) 6. Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599 (paras 3 and 4) 7. S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301 (SC) (para 11)” 19. We accordingly allow the Writ Petition, and direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of retirement i.e., 31.7.1988 till the respective dates of making of various payments, as mentioned in paragraph No. 16 of the Writ Petition. 20. We further direct that the remaining amounts still to be paid to the petitioner, as per the averments made in paragraph No. 16 of the Writ Petition, such as, Group Insurance Scheme, will also be paid to the petitioner. 21. The aforesaid payments of interest as well as the remaining amounts will be made to the petitioner expeditiously preferably, within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the respondents in the Writ Petition. 22. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. —————