Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1238 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ramji Das Agarwal

2012-12-03

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
ORDER Saxena, J. 1. Assailing the order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5119/2010 (S), the present appeal has been preferred under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005. 2. It is admitted that respondent Ramji Das Agarwal at the time of retirement was working as Executive Engineer in Water Resources Department and he after completing the age of superannuation retired on 31.8.2009. It is also admitted that after retirement, GPF amount was paid to the respondent on 4.1.2010, GIS amount was paid on 6.2.2010 and family welfare fund was paid on 25.2.2010. The gratuity, full pension, leave encashment, arrears of pay revision, etc. were not paid to the respondent till the date of order dated 24.1.2012 passed in WP No. 5119/2010. 3. The contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General is that the matter of the retiral benefits of the respondent was pending before the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension with regard to the fixation of the Respondent, therefore, there was no such delay on the part of the appellants/State authorities to clear all the retiral dues of the respondent. Hence, the direction as issued against the department for making payment of interest at the rate of 12% was not as per law. Thus, it is requested that the appeal preferred by the State may be allowed and the directions as issued may be set aside. 4. Heard Shri Khedkar, learned Deputy Advocate General and Shri B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent at length. 5. It appears that till passing of the order impugned dated 24.1.2012, the aforesaid post retiral dues such as gratuity, full pension, leave encashment, arrears of pay revision were not paid by the department to the respondent. Of course, the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension is also the part and parcel of the State. If any latches are committed by that office, the State cannot escape from their own liabilities for payment of post retiral dues to the respondent. 6. In Uma Agrawal, Dr. v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 , the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 regrad to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits. 6. In Uma Agrawal, Dr. v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1999 SC 1212 , the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 regrad 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 at least 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 occuring 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. 6. The case before us is a clear example of departmental delay which is not excusable. The petitioner retired on 30.4.1993 and it was only after 12.2.1996 when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up and started work by sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had worked. Such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. The amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-98. The petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30.3.1993 seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the department inasmuch as the rules and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. The exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner’s retirement. 7. Therefore, this is a fit case awarding interest to the petitioner. The exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner’s retirement. 7. Therefore, this is a fit case awarding interest to the petitioner. We do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. Instead, on the facts of this case, we quantify the interest payable at Rs. 1 Lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from today. 7. In Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2000 SC 3513 (2), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “3. In case of an employee 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 unforeseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of retirement. 4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31st August, 1997 till the date of payments.” 8. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within 12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her retirement, i.e., 31st August, 1997 till the date of payments.” 8. It would be profitable to quote here the relevant provisions of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976: e/;izns’k flfoy lsok,a ¼isa’ku½ fu;e] 1976 dk fu;e 57 & isU’ku ds dkxt i=ksa dh rS;kjh (Preparation of pension papers)- (1) ftl frfFk ls ‘kkldh; lsod vf/kokf”kZdh ij lsok ls fuo``Ÿk gksus okyk gS vFkok ml frfFk ls ftlls lsok fuo`fŸk iwoZ NqV~Vh ij tkrk gS] tks Hkh igys gks] mlls nks o”kZ iwoZ izR;sd dk;kZy; izeq[k ¼izk:i 6 [k½ esa isU’ku i=ksa dks rS;kj djus dk dk;Z izkjEHk dj nsxkA ¼fo-fo-d-,Q-ch-@6@1@77@fu&2@pkj] fnukad 1&2&77½A foRr foHkkx ds Kkiu Øekad ,Q ch- 6@19@83@fu&2@pkj- fnukad 25-4-1984 & }kjk vknsf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd Mh-lh-vkj- xzsP;qVh dh jkf’k dk Hkqxrku ns; gksus ds fnukad ls N% ekg ds Hkhrj ugha fd;k tkrk rks foyEc ls gksus dh n’kk esa N% ekg ds ckn dh vof/k ds fy;s 5 izfr’kr dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk;sA C;kt dh ik=rk ml fLFkfr esa gh xq.k&nks”k ds vk/kkj ij fopkj djus ds i’pkr~ gksxh tgka ;g Li”V :i ls fl) gks tk;s fd Hkqxrku esa fjyEc iz’kkldh; dkj.kksa ls gqvk gSA jkT; ‘kklu }kjk vc ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd Mh-lh-vkj- xzsP;qVh ds Hkqxrku esa gq, foyEc ds fy;s ns; C;kt vc 5 izfr’kr ls c<+kdj 12 izfr’kr dh lk/kkj.k nj ls laxf.kr dh tkdj ns; gksxhA 9. So far as question with regard to grant of NOC is concerned, it has already been considered by the learned Single Judge in para 4 of the order impugned. There is no justification in the hands of the State that for a long time respondent/employee remained bereft of all the benefits to which he was really entitled. 10. Looking to the legal propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the order impugned and awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid post retiral dues. 11. 10. Looking to the legal propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the order impugned and awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid post retiral dues. 11. Ex Consequenti, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, however, it is made clear that the appellants/State shall have the liberty to realize the amount of interest from the erring officers/employees of the department and the department of Treasury, Accounts and Pension too.