Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3181 (ALL)

GANGA PRASAD SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-17

K.J.THAKER, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ram Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Only dispute in this writ petition is regarding payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues. 3. Petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) after attaining age of superannuation on 31.5.1995 but his retiral dues have been paid with a long delay, on various dates after 2003. It is contended that for aforesaid delay respondents were responsible and, therefore, petitioner is entitled for interest. 4. Respondents have taken stand that pension documents were submitted by petitioner in 1999 but it is not stated anywhere in the counter-affidavit that at the time of retirement petitioner did not submit requisite pension documents. Petitioner has made averment in this regard in para 5 of the writ petition which has been replied in para 7 of counter-affidavit stating that pension papers of petitioner were forwarded to Directorate vide office letter dated 24.8.1999 which shows that there is nothing wrong on the part of petitioner in submitting his documents in time i.e. at the time of retirement but concerned office in which those documents were submitted by petitioner was guilty of laches and delay for withholding those documents and forwarding to Competent Authority only on 24.8.1999. That being so, responsibility lies upon respondents for such delay and same cannot be attributed to petitioner. It is thus evident that delay in payment of retiral dues to petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary and for fault on the part of respondents. In the circumstances, petitioner is entitled for payment of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. 5. Interest on delayed payment on retiral dues has been upheld time and against in a catena of decision. This Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 34804 of 2004) decided on 6.12.2005 held: “Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. In the case of State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR 750, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following months. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay panel interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.” In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained.” 6. It has been followed and reiterated in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 328 , R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection, (1994) 6 SCC 589 , S.R. Bhanrate v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 27 , Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 and S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 . 7. Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, (1999) 3 SCC 438 and S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44 . 7. A Division Bench of this Court has also considered the question of award of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits recently in Rajeshwar Swarup Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(2) ADJ 608 and, relying on the Apex Court decision in M. Padmnanaban Nair (supra) and its several follow up as also an earlier Division Bench judgement of this Court in Smt. Kavita Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 119 FLR 787, has awarded 12% interest in the said case. 8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that delayed payment of retiral dues to petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. There was no justification at all for respondents to delay payment thereof. 9. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.6.2005 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition), in so far as it denies interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum for delayed payment of retiral dues, which shall be computed after three months from the date of retirement till actual payment is made. The amount shall be computed and paid to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 10. No cots.