Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 973 (ALL)

Anand Priya Gautam v. State of U. P.

2016-03-16

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner's father was an Assistant Teacher. He reached his age of superannuation on 30th June, 2000 and retired. Unfortunately, he died on 05.07.2015. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after more than fifteen years, some of the post retiral benefits of the petitioner's father have not been paid. The petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the following reief: "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and make payment of differences of house rent allowance, pension, less payment of GPF, other retiral benefits alongwith belated payment interest of the father of the petitioner who has been retired on 03.06.2000 and died on 05.07.2015 (Annexure no.3 to this writ petition)." 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent sought certain documents vide communication dated 13th October, 2010. In response to the said communication, all the required documents have been submitted but still no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. It is a well established law that there should not be any delay in the payment of post retiral benefits and in the event any such delay occurs, the respondent authorities are liable to pay interest on the delayed amount. 6. This Court way back in the year 1992 in the case of Mukti Nath Rai v. State of U.P. and others, (1992) 1 UPLBEC 674, has issued a general mandamus in the following terms: "10. I, therefore, direct that henceforth Rules 906 to 960 of the Civil Service Regulations be followed strictly by all concerned officials, and payment of pension must begin promptly on the retirement of the U.P. Government employee. This mandamus must be strictly complied with, and all those responsible for its violation, whether in the parent department of the retiring employee or in the Accountant General's office, shall be held accountable of this court for such violation." 7. It is pertinent to mention that after the judgment of this Court in Mukti Nath Rai (supra), the State Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995 (for short, the "Rules, 1995"), providing detailed procedure with regard to sanction of pension. It is pertinent to mention that after the judgment of this Court in Mukti Nath Rai (supra), the State Government has framed the Uttar Pradesh Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995 (for short, the "Rules, 1995"), providing detailed procedure with regard to sanction of pension. As defined under Rule 2(b) and 2(k) of the said Rules, a specific Time-Schedule has been provided to be followed and complied with at each and every stage. In the said time-schedule, the description of work, time within which work is to be done and the person responsible for the work have specifically been mentioned in Columns-2, 3 and 4 respectively thereof. Under Rule-4 of the Rules, 1995, procedure for implementation of the time schedule and allied matters has been provided. It is apposite to reproduce Rule-4 of the Rules, 1995, as under: "4. Procedure for implementation of the time schedule and allied matters.--(1) A delay may be ascertained by the Nodal Officer/ Chief Nodal Officer: (a) from the complaint of the Pensioner/Pensioner's Organization; (b) from the follow up of the disposal of pension cases. (2) Whenever any delay comes to notice of the Nodal Officer/ Chief Nodal Officer, he shall require the Head of the Department/the Head of the Office to furnish all relevant informations in respect of the reasons for delay and, after such enquiry as he considers proper, find out the person responsible for the delay and send a proposal to the disciplinary authority concerned for disciplinary proceeding against him. The Nodal Officer/Chief Nodal Officer shall follow up the matter till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding and maintain record of such proceeding. The Nodal Officer shall intimate to the Chief Nodal Officer in respect of the result of such disciplinary proceeding. (3) A person, who fails to furnish required information to the Nodal Officer/Chief Nodal Officer in respect of retirement of an employee or in respect of any other matter relating thereto, or who is responsible for delay, shall be guilty of misconduct and be punishable under the punishment rules applicable to him. (4) Duly completed pension papers alongwith all relevant documents shall be sent to the pension sanctioning authority within the time schedule specified in the schedule in respect thereof. (5) The Chief Nodal Officer/Nodal Officer and the pension sanctioning authority shall ensure arrangement for disposal of pension matters within the time schedule. (4) Duly completed pension papers alongwith all relevant documents shall be sent to the pension sanctioning authority within the time schedule specified in the schedule in respect thereof. (5) The Chief Nodal Officer/Nodal Officer and the pension sanctioning authority shall ensure arrangement for disposal of pension matters within the time schedule. (6) The pension sanctioning authority shall hold or cause to be held regular monthly meeting of officers/officials, who deal such matters, and shall take all appropriate steps for examination and disposal of such matters. (7) The Principal Secretary or Secretary, as the case may be, to the Government in the Department concerned shall supervise the work of the Head of the Department/Head of the Office in relation to all pension matters within the time schedule." 8. The further grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for the payment as mentioned in the prayer clause and the interest on the delayed amount. In this regard the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement of a Division Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (3) ADJ 302 (DB). Relevant part of the said order reads as under: "7. In the case of State of Kerala Vs M Padmanabhan Nair and Som Prakash, (1985) 1 SCC 429 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment." 8. In a more recent decision in D D Tewari Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894 , the Supreme Court observed that any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof is to be visited with penalty of payment of interest. Hence, interest @ 9% on delayed payment was awarded to be paid within six weeks failing which interest @ 18% p.a. would need to be paid. An erroneous withholding of gratuity amount to which the employee is legally entitled, entails penalty on the delayed payment." 9. Hence, interest @ 9% on delayed payment was awarded to be paid within six weeks failing which interest @ 18% p.a. would need to be paid. An erroneous withholding of gratuity amount to which the employee is legally entitled, entails penalty on the delayed payment." 9. In view of the facts, keeping this writ petition pending will further aggravate the agony of the petitioner and his family. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah to take appropriate decision within two months from the date of communication of this order. 10. The petitioner shall also be entitled for the interest on the delayed amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of retirement of his father till the amount is paid to him. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.