Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 76 (JHR)

Ramesh Oraon v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the retiral benefits to the petitioner have been paid, the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues has been rejected by order dated 10.10.2012. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has disputed the claim raised by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of constable on 13.11.1986 and by order dated 01.08.2010, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal from service was converted into an order of compulsory retirement by order dated 11.11.2010, passed by the Appellate-authority. The petitioner made a representation on 26.12.2011 for payment of retiral benefits to him however, the same was not paid to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to move this Court in WP (S) No. 1733 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 29.06.2012 with a direction to respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court the retiral dues to the petitioner has been paid, details of which have been given in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. 5. Paragraphs nos. 6 to 8 of the counter-affidavit are extracted below:- “6. That with regard to the statement made by the petitioner in paragraph-1, in the instant writ petition under reply, it is humbly stated and submitted that the same is prayer of the petitioner has no merit and as is liable to be dismissed. It is stated and submitted that the final pension of the petitioner has been fixed vide pension intimation memo no. 7490 dated 05.12.2012 and gratuity payment order vide memo no. 7491 dated 05.12.2012 issued from the office of Principal Accountant General (A&E) Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. That it is humbly stated and submitted that as it appears from memo no. 7491 dated 05.12.2012 that the gratuity of the petitioner which was initially provisionally fixed as Rs. 1,24,740/- were earlier paid vide B.D. No. 321325 dated 24.12.2011, has also been finally fixed and a further Rs. 49,724/- has been ordered to be paid to petitioner who can collect it from the Treasury. 7491 dated 05.12.2012 that the gratuity of the petitioner which was initially provisionally fixed as Rs. 1,24,740/- were earlier paid vide B.D. No. 321325 dated 24.12.2011, has also been finally fixed and a further Rs. 49,724/- has been ordered to be paid to petitioner who can collect it from the Treasury. The final pension of the petitioner and all relevant documents has been already referred to treasury office and the petitioner can very well collect all his dues regarding final gratuity payment and final fixation of pension. 8. That it is further stated and submitted that the petitioner has been paid final GPF vide bill no. 28/12 of Rs. 1,28,284/- on 16.11.2011, and LIC vide bill no. 46/11-12 of Rs. 1,26,771/-by account payee dated 14.01.2012. The arrear of the 6th pay which was coming to Rs. 4442/- has also been paid to petitioner on 16.03.2012 and he has also been paid his leave encashment vide EB 167/12-13 of Rs. 1,48,480/- on 18.10.2012. Hence there is nothing to be paid to the petitioner from the side of answering respondent and all his dues have been paid as stated hereinabove.” 6. From the record of the case, I find that the writ petition is bereft of foundational facts for raising a claim for grant of interest. Neither the order passed by this Court on 29.06.2012 nor the representation dated 25.07.2012 (annexure–3) submitted by the petitioner would indicate that the petitioner has raised a claim for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair” reported in AIR 1985 SC 356 and contended that immediately after the retirement the employee should have been paid retiral dues and if it is not paid in time, the respondent-department is liable to pay penal interest on the delayed payment of the retiral dues to the employee. 8. I am of the view that it cannot be disputed that an employee should be paid retiral benefits immediately after his superannuation from service however, the payment of retiral dues to an ex-employees depends on several facts. The employee is required to submit documents and complete the formalities. 8. I am of the view that it cannot be disputed that an employee should be paid retiral benefits immediately after his superannuation from service however, the payment of retiral dues to an ex-employees depends on several facts. The employee is required to submit documents and complete the formalities. In the present case, I do not find any statement made in the writ petition that immediately after order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner had completed all necessary formalities and only due to latches on the part of department the retiral dues to the petitioner was paid at a belated stage. The documents filed in the present proceeding would indicate that the petitioner submitted his 1st representation on 26.12.2011 only. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.