Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 11 (MEG)

Angelline Wallang v. Union of India

2018-05-02

S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mrs. T. Yangi. B, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Mozika, learned CGC for the respondents. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "1. The Petitioner took voluntary retirement from her Department in NSS w.e.f. 31.12.2009 in the post of Deputy Programme Adviser after giving the three months statutory notice in September, 2009. 2. Sometime in the year 1997 the Petitioner was in deputation in the World Wild Fund Nature India (WWF) and was posted back to her parent Department in the year 1999. 3. After retirement the Petitioner was not paid the commuted Pension, Monthly Pension, Leave Salary, CGEIS inspite of repeated requests and representations and the same was paid to her only in the middle of 2012, that is, after a delay of two and a half years. 4. The main reason for the delay in payment of the Petitioners terminal benefits inter alia was the fact that the Respondents had not updated her Service Book/records annually as per rule. 5. In fact the same was not updated for ten years ever since she returned to her parent Department from Deputation in WWF in the year 1999. 6. The Petitioner had to undergo a lot of hardship, inconvenience, humiliation and harassment on account of the delay in the payment of her terminal benefits as a result of which she filed a representation requesting for interest but the Respondents to which they did not pay any heed. 7. A legal notice dated 04.04.2016 was then issued requesting for interest and compensation, to which also the Respondents did not pay any heed. 8. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner files this petition for interest on the delayed payment of her terminal benefits from the date it has become due, viz. 01.01.2010 upto the date of its payment and also for compensation." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after retirement did not get her pensionary benefits at the right time and delayed by two and a half years. Therefore, she is entitled to get the interest for the delay in the payment of the pensionary benefits. Hence, necessary directions may be issued. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after retirement did not get her pensionary benefits at the right time and delayed by two and a half years. Therefore, she is entitled to get the interest for the delay in the payment of the pensionary benefits. Hence, necessary directions may be issued. 4. On the other hand, the learned CGC submits that the petitioner went on deputation, as a result her service book was not updated by the Department concerned, hence causing the delay in the payment of the pensionary benefits. 5. I do not agree with the submission advanced by the learned CGC. It is an admitted fact that the delay has caused the Department concerned to pay the interest for the delay in the payment of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, the petitioner is entitled for the interest as claimed herein. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay the interest for the delay in the payment of the pensionary benefits within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. Further, on request made by the learned CGC, time is extended upto 2(two) months for payment of the interest to the petitioner. 6. With this observation and direction the instant writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.