Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1501 (ALL)

PUSHPA SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-04-22

AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, TARUN AGARWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner retired on 14.12.2011 as a Librarian in D.A.V. Post-Graduate College, Muzaffar Nagar. The retirement dues and arrears of salary was not released. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5835 of 2010 which was allowed holding that she would retire at the age of 62 years instead of 60 years. The Writ Court issued a mandamus directing that the petitioner would be entitled to full salary up to the age of 62 years after deducting the amount of pension drawn by her. The respondents were further directed to calculate the benefits and pay the balance amount within three months. Since the same was not paid the petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 4332 of 2012. This Court by an order dated 20.9.2012 granted one more opportunity to the opposite parties to comply with the order within a month. 3. Based on the said direction the arrears of salary was released on 17.1.2013. Pensionary benefits were released on 8.5.2013 and General Provident Fund was released on 6.3.2014 but no interest was paid and, consequently, the present writ petition has been filed praying for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the interest on the delay payment at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and for quashing the order dated 12.3.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest was rejected. 4. Admittedly, G.P.F. and pension was required to be released immediately upon the date of retirement which had not been done. Further in spite of the direction of the Court, the payment was not released within the stipulated period and the same was released in phases as indicated aforesaid. 5. The Supreme Court has held that pension is not a bounty but a right of a Government servant and if there is a delay in the payment of post retiral dues then interest becomes payable as held in Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 and again in Smt. Madhuri Devi v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 9 SCC 687 . In Shripati Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ESC 357 (All)(DB), a Division Bench of this Court held that interest is payable on arrears of salary and other retirement benefits. In Shripati Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(1) ESC 357 (All)(DB), a Division Bench of this Court held that interest is payable on arrears of salary and other retirement benefits. The Writ Court awarded 12 per cent simple interest per annum. 6. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the fact that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and the entire fault lay with the department, we, accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order. 7. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. ———————