Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 339 (ALL)

INDRA BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-02-23

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, SUNEET KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT By the Court.—The appellant retired on 31 August 2011 from the post of Meth in the Irrigation Department. On 18 May 2012, after retirement of the appellant, a cheque in the amount of Rs. 3,06,052/- was paid over to him. The cheque was however drawn in the name of "Indra Bahadur" whereas the correct name of the appellant as in the service record was Indra Bahadur Srivastava. The cheque was returned back by the treasury. Subsequently, on 5 June 2012, the appellant moved an application for the issuance of a fresh cheque in the correct name of the appellant. Eventually on 22 August 2012, a cheque was issued to the appellant in the amount of Rs. 3,06,052/-. The appellant claimed interest for the delay of eleven months and twenty five days. But his request was not considered. Thereafter, in pursuance of an order passed in an earlier writ petition, the second respondent rejected the claim on 30 April 2013 which led to the filing of a writ petition for claiming interest. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the delay in payment of the provident fund dues of the appellant was not willful. 2. The order of the Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department dated 30 April 2013 indicates the factual position. Initially only 90% of the provident fund amount was sought to be released in favour of the appellant. However, subsequently, the competent authority realized that a class-IV employee was entitled to the release of the entire provident fund dues and it was not permissible to withhold a part of the amount. Subsequently, a cheque was issued to the appellant but that was not in the correct name as borne out by the service record. The appellant was required to pursue the matter when the cheque was returned and it was only thereafter that a fresh cheque was issued. In this process a period of eleven months and twenty five days, admittedly, elapsed. 3. The appellant is not at fault and there is no suggestion to the effect that it was because of the conduct of the appellant that the payment was delayed. There was no inquiry pending against the appellant nor was there any valid justification to withhold a portion of the amount initially. 3. The appellant is not at fault and there is no suggestion to the effect that it was because of the conduct of the appellant that the payment was delayed. There was no inquiry pending against the appellant nor was there any valid justification to withhold a portion of the amount initially. Similarly there was absolutely no reason or justification for the State to issue a cheque in the wrong name, as a result of which encashment of the amount was delayed. Retiral dues are not a bounty or charity but constitute an entitlement. The appellant who was a class-IV employee was made to move this Court on two occasions, first for disposal of his representation for interest and thereafter against the order denying him interest. There had been a clear dereliction on the part of the officials of the State in processing the claim of the appellant expeditiously, firstly withholding the part of the claim and later issuing a cheque in the wrong name. 4. In these circumstances, the claim of interest was sustainable. The learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no willful delay where the facts of the present case are indicative that there was a clear dereliction on the part of the officials of the State. 5. In these circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall be paid interest computed at 9% per annum on the provident fund amount from the due date until it was actually paid to the appellant. Since the appellant had already been paid the provident dues, the interest shall be payable to him no later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order computed at the rate of 9% per annum as stated above. In the event of any further delay beyond the period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the State shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum until payment is made. 6. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge shall, accordingly, stand set aside. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the appellant shall stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. 7. The special appeal stands, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ——————