Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 224 (RAJ)

Indra Devi. v. State of Rajasthan

2015-01-27

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying that the respondents be issued a direction to make payment of gratuity, contributory provident fund, leave salary, pension arrear so also family pension forthwith along with interest @ 18% p.a. A further prayer for compensation has also been made in the writ petition. 3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner is the widow of late Ganpat Kumar Solanki, an ex Govt, employee. It is claimed in the writ petition that Ganpat Kumar was initially appointed as timekeeper in the office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub-Division, Sumerpur, District Pali on 1.4.1950. Thereafter, he was transferred to the office of Executive Engineer, Jawai Dam Division. He was promoted to the post of LDC on 1.5.1956. He served the irrigation department from 1.4.1950 to 1.4.1957. Thereafter, he was transferred to the office of Manager, Sirohi Motor Service, Sirohi and worked upto 14.11.1967 in the said office. On creation of RSRTC, Ganpat Kumar gave an option to serve under the Corporation and was inducted as a clerical staff in RSRTC where he discharged his duties satisfactorily for a period of 21 years 1 month 16 days from 15.11.1967 to 31.12.1988. He retired from the service of RSRTC on 31.12.1988. It is claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner's husband put in a total of 38 years 8 months 29 days service under the various departments of the State Government/Corporation. The period of 17 years 7 months 13 days of service rendered by Shri Ganpat Kumar Solanki in the State service was not taken into account while calculating the retiral benefits accruing to the employee. The gratuity amount of Rs. 26,040/- was paid to Ganpat Kumar on 8.4.1996 calculating his service for 21 years only. CPF payment was also paid to him to the tune of Rs. 45,974/- vide order dated 27.1.1994 by counting his service of the said period only. The contribution of the employer was not included while calculating the said CPF. Ganpat Kumar expired on 12.6.2002 at Chennai. It is claimed in the writ petition that though the petitioner being Ganpat Kumar's widow was entitled to receive family pension, the respondents failed to make payment thereof on which numerous representations were submitted to the authorities but were not responded to. Ganpat Kumar expired on 12.6.2002 at Chennai. It is claimed in the writ petition that though the petitioner being Ganpat Kumar's widow was entitled to receive family pension, the respondents failed to make payment thereof on which numerous representations were submitted to the authorities but were not responded to. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached this Court pursuant to the death of her husband praying that the respondents be directed to make payment of remainder of the gratuity, CPF, pension, family pension etc. to the petitioner. 4. It is claimed that the retiral benefits including gratuity & C.P.F. accruing upon the death of Ganpat Kumar was paid after a great delay. Whilst determining the CPF dues, the employer's contribution was not included therein. The respondents were under an obligation to make payment of interest for the period of delay in making payment of the retiral dues but failed to do so. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to make payment of the remainder of retiral benefits accruing to the petitioner upon the death of her husband and also for a direction that the family pension be paid to her. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for RSRTC submits that as per the document Ex.R/1, it is evident that though initially, the service of the employee for the period during which he had served the State Government was not counted while calculating the gratuity but thereafter vide order Ex.R/1, the gratuity amount for the remaining period of service was also paid to him. The CPF benefits falling due to the employee was paid to the employee after his retirement. He contends that in view of the fact that as the employee opted for CPF, neither he nor his family members are entitled to receive pension. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the matter as the action of the respondents is just and proper and cannot be termed illegal or arbitrary. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 8. The fact that Ganpat Kumar worked in various departments of the State Government for 17 years before induction in RSRTC is not disputed. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record. 8. The fact that Ganpat Kumar worked in various departments of the State Government for 17 years before induction in RSRTC is not disputed. In the order Ex.R/1, it is specifically mentioned that the higher authorities gave direction to count the 17 years of service put in by the employee in the State Government while calculating his retiral benefits. In pursuance thereof, the gratuity for the remaining period of service of 17 years rendered by the employee in the State Government was also paid to him. However, it is evident that the payment of gratuity originally vide order dated 30.1.1990 and the additional amount of gratuity vide order dated 27.5.1998 are belated. Likewise CPF benefits were released to the employee also on 29.1.1994 i.e. 6 years after his retirement. 9. The retiral benefits of an employee are to be paid to him forthwith upon his superannuation. Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, 1996 clearly provides that if the payment of retiral benefits is delayed beyond 60 days, the interest accrues thereupon. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the issue in the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1077 and held that even if there Is no provision or Rule for applying interest on the delayed payment of retiral dues, the same is required to be paid. The Apex Court held that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty and an employee is entitled as of right to get those benefits immediately after superannuation unless they are withdrawn or withheld as a matter of punishment. Thus, if the same are withheld or delayed, interest is required to be given thereupon. Thus, for the delay, occasion in payment of gratuity and CPF dues of the petitioner's husband, interest @ 9% p.a. deserves to be applied on the same. 11. So far as the grievance raised in the writ petition regarding the C.P.F. amount having been released without counting the employer's contribution is concerned, the said assertion is disputed by the respondents and thus, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be required to submit a representation to the respondent authorities who should consider and decide the same by a reasoned speaking order. Likewise, the prayer made in the petition for payment of pension should also be directed to be considered by the authorities concerned whilst deciding the petitioner's representation. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the petitioner shall be required to submit a representation to the authorities for these two remaining grievances and the authorities concerned upon receiving such representation shall consider and decide the same by a reasoned speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt thereof along with a copy of the order. 12. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to the petitioner on all the retiral dues of her husband including the gratuity and CPF, applying the same from 60 days of the retirement date of Ganpat Kumar i.e. 31.12.1988 till the date of actual payment. The payment in above terms shall be made to the petitioner within a period of two months from today, failing which the interest shall stand enhanced to 12% p.a. 13. No order as to cost.