Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1520 (ALL)

Ragini Srivasatva v. State of U. P.

2023-05-31

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR

body2023
JUDGMENT Karunesh Singh Pawar, J. Heard Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent/State. Prayer 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: - "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to release and make payment of entire retiral benefits of the petitioner's deceased husband Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, which includes amount of Death Gratuity, leave encashment, G.P.F., G.I.S., arrear of salary in revised pay scale of the deceased fallen due with effect from 1.1.2006 to 5.10.2008 and family pension to the petitioner with effect from 6.10.2008 together with its arrears along with interest @ 12% per annum; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum or an amount as may be quantified by this Hon'ble Court over the entire pending amount of the petitioner's deceased husband, Late Ram Kumar Srivastava due to arbitrary and illegally withholding the dues and creating inordinate delay from the date of his death i.e. 5.10.2008 till the actual payment is made by the opposite parties to the petitioner; (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding the State Government, the party No.1 to fix personal liability of the authority as per Government order dated 28.9.1999, contained in Annexure No.14 to the writ petition, who is responsible for creating inordinate delay in the payment of retiral dues including family pension to the petitioner by now about ten long years, thereby recover the amount of interest @ 12% per annum or above over the entire withheld amount from the liable authority and pay the same to the petitioner for suffering financial hardship and frame in absence of the payment of her legal dues; (iv).... (v)......" Facts Of The Case 3. The husband of the petitioner, Ram Kumar Srivastava, while serving on the post of Tubewell Operator in Irrigation Department at Raebareli, died on 5.10.2008, leaving behind following family members who are dependants of deceased employee:- 1. Smt.Ragini Srivastava, wife of deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava, 2. Km.Niharika Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, 3. Km.Jyoti Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, 4. Smt.Ragini Srivastava, wife of deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava, 2. Km.Niharika Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, 3. Km.Jyoti Srivastava, daughter of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava, 4. Amit Srivastava, son of Late Ram Kumar Srivastava. 4. On account of sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family, the family members have fallen into great financial crisis and as such, the petitioner approached to the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Chhajlapur, Rae Bareli requesting him to provide death-terminal dues of the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava to her and also she claimed compassionate appointment to her son, namely, Amit Srivastava. In response, the Executive Engineer required from the petitioner to submit the Succession Certificate granted by the competent Court. Thereafter, on 21.10.2008, the petitioner moved an application before the Executive Engineer, seeking to provide her the detail amount of dues of her deceased husband enabling her to get the succession certificate, however, when no heed was paid, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act about the pending dues of her deceased husband. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was informed that as on 27.1.2009 G.P.F. amount due was Rs.1,05,084/-, leave encashment was Rs.1,13,930/-, G.I.S. amount was Rs.60,000/- and amount of gratuity was Rs.2,73,432/- i.e. the total payable amount was Rs.5,52,446/-. Thereafter, for obtaining succession certificate, the petitioner has approached Civil Court by instituting a Misc. case bearing M.N.R. No.242 of 2008 seeking to grant her Succession Certificate. 5. In the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner, since her husband was alcoholic and used to abuse her children, she started living separately. It is alleged by one Aneeta Srivastava that a will was executed on 9.3.2004 in her favour, on the basis of which, the said Aneeta Srivastava also filed a case for succession bearing M.N.R. No.217 of 2008 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no.10, Rae Bareli. 6. It is alleged by one Aneeta Srivastava that a will was executed on 9.3.2004 in her favour, on the basis of which, the said Aneeta Srivastava also filed a case for succession bearing M.N.R. No.217 of 2008 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no.10, Rae Bareli. 6. Since the petitioner continued to approach time and again to the opposite party no.4 for payment of family pension and other post retiral dues of late husband, the opposite party no.4 refused to make the payment on the pretext that two ladies namely Ragini Srivastava (the petitioner) and Amit Srivastava have claimed the post retiral dues and all other terminal benefits and both of them have filed case before the Court and the same was pending, therefore, nothing can be done till the matter is finally decided by the Court. 7. On 22.5.2014, it is alleged that Sub-Divisional Officer, Raebareli had granted a certificate for disbursement of the Government security or promissory note and the amount not exceeding Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner, however, it could not be used for any other purpose. Contention Of Learned Counsel For The Petitioner 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Aneeta Srivastava has no legal right under The Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 (hereinafter in short referred as Rules 1961) as she does not come in the definition of 'family'. 9. Will dated 9.3.2004 was challenged by the petitioner vide O.S. No.1320 of 2008 filed in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.21, Rae Bareli. Another suit bearing O.S. No. 1091 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16, Rae Bareli seeking a decree for permanent injunction and declaration against Aneeta Srivastava who was attempting to get the dues of the late husband of the petitioner, released in her favour. Opposite party No.4 due to the repeated approaches of the petitioner got annoyed and restrained the petitioner and his son through its letter dated 21.6.2014 directing not to make unnecessary correspondence and not to waste time until they produce succession certificate issued by the Court. Opposite party No.4 due to the repeated approaches of the petitioner got annoyed and restrained the petitioner and his son through its letter dated 21.6.2014 directing not to make unnecessary correspondence and not to waste time until they produce succession certificate issued by the Court. Again opposite party no.4 vide his letter dated 10.10.2014 informed the petitioner that payment of post-retiral dues as well as compassionate appointment of his son can only be decided after the decision of O.S. No. 1091 of 2008 pending in the court of District Judge, Rae Bareli, Ragini Srivastava and others v. Ajay Kishore Dubey and others. 10. The son of the petitioner Amit Srivastava, due to casual attitude of the departmental authorities was constrained to file Writ Petition No.2064 (SS) of 2015, Amit Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition no.2064 (SS) of 2015 was allowed and the impugned order dated 21.6.2014 and 10.10.2014 passed by the respondent no.4 were set aside and he was directed to decide the claim of the petitioner (Amit Srivastava) for compassionate appointment in a time bound period. In the meantime compassionate appointment was given to the son of the petitioner Amit Srivastava and was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk in the pay scale of 5200-20200 on the vacant post at Sharda Sahayak Khand-6 Rae Bareli vide order dated 11.12.2018. Prior to the death of her husband, Ram Kumar Srivastava because of the strange relationship, the petitioner filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Judicial Magistrate Court No. 20, Rae Bareli, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 84 of 2008. In the aforesaid case on 22.1.2007, the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava was examined as O.P.W.1, who in his deposition stated/admitted his marriage with the petitioner held in the year 1979 and also admitted his three children from their wedlock and further execution of any registered will was denied by him. 11. Consequently Misc. Case No.159 of 1993 filed under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act by the petitioner along with her three children against her husband Ram Kumar Srivastava was also decided on 8.1.1998 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli. 11. Consequently Misc. Case No.159 of 1993 filed under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act by the petitioner along with her three children against her husband Ram Kumar Srivastava was also decided on 8.1.1998 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli. The amount of Rs.1500/- per month was fixed and directed to be paid by late Ram Kumar Srivastava to the applicants holding that Ram Kumar Srivastava was married to Ragini Srivastava as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their union daughters Km. Niharika, Km. Jyoti Srivastava and one son Amit Srivastava were born. 12. Another Criminal Misc. Case No.302 of 2007 filed by the petitioner along with her children Km. Niharika, Amit Srivastava and Km. Jyoti under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Ram Kumar Srivastava was also decided by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No.17, Rae Bareli holding therein that the petitioner Ragini Srivastava is legally wedded wife of Ram Kumar Srivastava, who was ousted along with her three children by the opposite party Ram Kumar Srivastava. The maintenance amount of Rs.900/- per month was allowed to be paid to each applicant by the opposite party. 13. In the meantime, Aneeta Srivastava, died on 21.9.2020, who was neither spouse nor comes under family of the deceased. She died issue-less. Succession case being M.N.R. No.242 of 2008 filed on 21.11.2008 by the petitioner before the Vith Additional District Judge, Rae Bareli, was disposed of on 9.8.2019 with a direction to file the same in the civil court, against which the petitioner has filed First Appeal No.3 of 2020 before this Court, which is pending. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgements reported in (2016) 16 SCC 229 Nitu v. Sheela Rani and others; 2020 (38) LCD 2371, Mst.Sudha Devi v. U.P.Power Corporation Ltd.; (2009) 10 SCC 680 Shipra Sen Gupta v. Mridul Sen Gupta and others; (2008) 3 UPLBEC 2725 D.B. Indrajeet Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2014 (32) LCD 581 Syed Abrar Ali v. State of U.P. and others. 15. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after death of Aneeta Srivastava there is no one left to contest the claim of the petitioner for grant of post retiral dues and other terminal benefits of her late husband Ram Kumar Srivastava. 16. 15. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after death of Aneeta Srivastava there is no one left to contest the claim of the petitioner for grant of post retiral dues and other terminal benefits of her late husband Ram Kumar Srivastava. 16. He submits that once the competent court, on judicial side, in two proceedings i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No.302 of 2007 and Misc. Case No.159 of 1993 filed under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act held that the petitioner was married to Ram Kumar Srivastava and out of their union three children were born nothing remains to be adjudicated by any other court. The claim of the petitioner for grant of post retiral dues of late husband is being arbitrarily denied and the same is liable to be granted to the petitioner forthwith along with penal interest. Contention Of Learned Counsel For The Respondents 17. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that late Ram Kumar Srivastava has not nominated any member of his family as his nominee. 18. He further submitted that in his will Ram Kumar Srivastava has bequeathed his dues to Aneeta Srivastava. He further submitted that since both the ladies Aneeta Srivastava and Ragini Srivastava have filed their claim and counter claim before the competent court for issuance of succession certificate, therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be disbursed. 19. It is next submitted that the family pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other post retiral dues of late Ram Kumar Srivastava could not given for the following reasons:- (a) There is no nomination in the service record of the deceased government servant Ram Kumar Srivastava in favour of the petitioner or anyone else; (b) No succession certificate has been issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner; (c) Besides the petitioner another lady namely Aneeta Srivastava having the will deed in his favour has also claimed the said dues of the deceased. Finding 20. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. The Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 were notified on 29.3.1962. Finding 20. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 21. The Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 were notified on 29.3.1962. Under Rule 3(3), definition of 'family' has been given, which is extracted below:- "(3) "Family" means the following relatives of an officer; (i) wife, in the case of any male officer, (ii) husband, in the case of a female officer, (iii) sons (including such step-children and adopted children) (iv) unmarried and widowed daughters. (Including such step-children and adopted children) (v) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried and widowed sisters (including step-brothers and step-sisters), (vi) father, (vii) mother, (viii) married daughters (including step-daughters), and (ix) children of a pre-deceased son;" 22. A perusal of the Rule 3(3) of Rules 1961 shows that 'family' means the wife, in case of death of male officer, sons, which includes step-children and adopted children, unmarried and widowed daughters including step children and adopted children, the married daughters including step daughters and others. 23. It is not in dispute between the parties that Aneeta Srivastava has died on 21.9.2020. The death certificate is on record as Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit. Thus apart from the petitioner who alleges her to be the wife of the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava there is no other claimant of post retiral dues and other terminal benefits including Family Pension of the deceased Government Servant. 24. It is also not disputed that the competent court while deciding the Misc. Case No.159 of 1993 filed under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act has held that Smt. Ragini Srivastava was married to Ram Kumar Srivastava as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their union daughters Km. Niharika, Km. Jyoti and one son Amit Srivastava were born and they are entitled to get maintenance from opposite party Ram Kumar Srivastava. The order is dated 8.1.1998. 25. Likewise, while deciding Criminal Misc. Case No.302 of 2007 the Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No.17, Rae Bareli vide his judgement and order dated 19.6.2007 has held that Ragini Srivastava is legally wedded wife of Ram Kumar Srivastava and has directed for payment of maintenance amount of Rs.900/- per month each to Ragini Srivastava, Amit Srivastava and Jyoti Srivastava. 26. Likewise, in another case i.e. Criminal Misc. 26. Likewise, in another case i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 84 of 2008, Ragini Srivastava v. Ram Kumar Srivastava filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Ram Kumar Srivastava was appeared in the witness box and got examined as O.P.W.1 and in his deposition he admitted that he was married in the year 1979 with the petitioner. He further admitted that earlier in the year 1991, in another maintenance case, which was filed by the petitioner against him, he has admitted all the three children. However, in this case he has only admitted Niharika Singh as his daughter. The statement is on record as Annexure RA-6 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. 27. Rule 9 of 1961 Rules further provides that an officer having family, if, dies without making a nomination, right to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, shall be paid in equal shares to those surviving members of his family who belong to categories (i) to (iv) mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 except widowed daughters. Rule 9 of 1961 Rules is extracted below:- "If an officer having a family dies without making a nomination confer-ring on one or more of the members of his family the right to receive the amount of death-cum-retirement gratuity, it shall be paid in equal shares to those surviving members of this family who belong to categories (i) to (iv) mentioned in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 except widowed daughters. Where there are no such surviving members, but there is/are surviving widowed daughter(s) and/or one or more members of the family of the officer who belong to categories (v) to (ix) mentioned in the said sub-rule, the gratuity shall be paid to such person or to all such persons in equal share." 28. From perusal of two verdicts given by the competent court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 84 of 2008 and Misc. Case No.159 of 1993, which are judicial proceedings the court of law has held that the petitioner to be the wife of the deceased and her children to be the sons/daughters of the deceased. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava has admitted the petitioner as her legally wedded wife. Although in the statement as O.P.W.1 dated 22.1.2007 he has only admitted Niharika Singh as his daughter, however, as per his own statement in the earlier proceedings he has admitted all his three children. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava has admitted the petitioner as her legally wedded wife. Although in the statement as O.P.W.1 dated 22.1.2007 he has only admitted Niharika Singh as his daughter, however, as per his own statement in the earlier proceedings he has admitted all his three children. The statement is on record as RA-6 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. Considering these facts the Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Court No.17, Rae Bareli vide order dated 19.6.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 302 of 2007 has held that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Ram Kumar Srivastava and has directed for providing alimony to the petitioner as well as children Amit Srivastava and Km. Jyoti Srivastava. Niharika Srivastava was not provided any alimony as she was 22 years of age at that time and was major. 29. Likewise, in another Misc. Case No.159 of 1993 under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act the court has held vide order dated 8.1.1998 that parties are Hindu by religion and Smt. Ragini Srivastava was married to Ram Kumar Srivastava as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of their union daughters Km. Niharika, Km. Jyoti and one son Amit Srivastava were born and they are entitled to get maintenance from opposite party Ram Kumar Srivastava. 30. Since, Amit Srivastava has already been given compassionate appointment treating him to be the family member of deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava, the opposite parties in any way cannot deny his claim as the son of the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava. 31. Since, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the deceased during his lifetime has admitted that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife and the finding has been recorded by the court on the basis of such admission by the deceased, hence, after the death of the husband of the petitioner no court including succession court can give a better finding in favour of the petitioner. Although the deceased in the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has admitted all the three children to be born from the wedlock of the deceased and the petitioner, however, he denied the parentage of other two children in his statement (RA- 6) still the court proceed to grant alimony to the other two children namely Amit Srivastava and Jyoti Srivastava apart from Ragini Srivastava to the tune of Rs.900/- each. Even otherwise, the status of these two children as per Rule 6 as step daughter/step son cannot be denied. Thus, they will covered under the definition of 'family' as provided under the Rule 1961. 32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitu v. Sheela Rani held that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased, hence the deceased employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will. Relevant paragraph 17 of the judgement is extracted below:- " It is pertinent to note that in this case the pension is to be given under the provisions of the Scheme and therefore, only the person who is entitled to get the pension as per the Scheme would get it. Similar issue had arisen before this Court in the case of Violet Issaac (Smt.) v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725 and after considering the relevant provisions, this Court came to the conclusion that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and therefore, even an employee has no right to dispose of the same in his Will by giving a direction that someone other than the one who is entitled to it, should be given the same. In the instant case, as per the provisions of the Scheme, the appellant widow is the only family member who is entitled to the pension and therefore, the respondent mother would not get any right in the pension. Of course, it cannot be disputed that if there are other assets left by late Shri Yash Pal, the respondent mother would get 50% share, if late Shri Yash Pal had not prepared any Will and it appears that late Shri Yash Pal had died intestate and no Will had been executed by him." 33. This Court in the case of Mst. Sudha Devi (supra) has held that right to compassionate appointment and family pension cannot be bequeathed through a Will. This Court in the case of Mst. Sudha Devi (supra) has held that right to compassionate appointment and family pension cannot be bequeathed through a Will. Relevant paragraph 6 is reproduced as under:- "The petitioner is the widow of Rajendra Prasad while the respondent no. 4 is the daughter-in-law of late Rajendra Prasad. Under the Family Pension Scheme promulgated by the State Government in 1965, daughter-in-law is not entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased employee and under Rule 3 (Kha) only the spouse, minor son or unmarried minor daughters are entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased employee. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 is not entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased Rajendra Prasad under the Family Pension Scheme 1965. Family pension is not an estate of the deceased and therefore, cannot be bequeathed through a Will and disbursal has to be made in accordance with the mandate of the scheme. In my aforesaid view, I am supported by two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in Nitu v. Sheela Rani and others (2016) 16 SCC 229 and Smt.Violet Issaac and others v. Union of India and others (1991) 1 SCC 725 ." 34. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the deceased died without making any nomination and there is rival contestant is misconceived for two reasons. One is that the contestant Aneeta Srivastava died issue-less. Secondly, even if, she was alive, the nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sen Gupta (supra). Relevant paragraph 17 and 18 of the judgement are extracted below:- "17. The controversy involved in the instant case is no longer res integra. The nominee is entitled to receive the same, but the amount so received is to be distributed according to the law of succession. In terms of the factual foundation laid in this case, the deceased died on 8.11.1990 leaving behind his mother and widow as his only heirs and legal representatives entitled to succeed. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. 18. Therefore, on the day when the right of succession opened, the appellant, his widow became entitled to one half of the amount of the general provident fund, the other half going to the mother and on her death, the other surviving son getting the same. 18. In view of the clear legal position, it is made abundantly clear that the amount in any head can be received by the nominee, but the amount can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased in accordance with law of succession governing them. In other words, nomination does not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee. In the instant case amounts so received are to be distributed according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 35. Ram Kumar Srivastava, husband of the petitioner, died on 5.10.2008 and since then the petitioner, who is the widow of Ram Kumar Srivastava as well as three children are fighting for their claim and in spite of two verdicts given by the competent court of law declaring her to be the legally wedded wife and granted alimony to her and her children she has been deprived from the benefit of post retiral dues including family pension of her husband. 36. It is worthwhile to note that for removing hurdles in payment of post retiral dues and for ensuring the payment of post retiral dues, Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has framed Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules 1995 in which schedule has been provided and the work time period within which that work has to be done and the person responsible for that work has been mentioned. Rule 4 further provides the procedure for implementation to avoid the delay and disposal of pension matters including family pension and in case any matter comes to the knowledge of the department where delay has been occurred an eqnuiry has to be initiated and responsible officer should be punished after the due enquiry and against him a proposal for disciplinary proceeding shall be send to the disciplinary authority and adequate punishment for such misconduct shall be given to that responsible officer. 37. 37. Considering the fact that late husband of the petitioner died in the year 2008; for the last approximately 15 years the petitioner and her children are running from pillar to post; not a single penny has been given to them despite two orders of the competent court wherein she has been declared as legally wedded wife; no better verdict could have been given by the succession court after death of the deceased Ram Kumar Srivastava; while he was alive and one of such order has been passed on his admission and deposition before the court, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to be given interest of delayed payment of post retiral dues for the apathy shown by the respondents. 38. There is one more reason for ordering interest is that once the son of the petitioner was given compassionate appointment and vide order dated 11.12.2018 the impugned orders were set aside by the court and that order attains finality it was not open for the respondents to sit tight on the matter and not to process the payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner on the pretext that some rival claimant has also made the claim and has not able to produce succession certificate. This Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh (supra) while relying on the judgement of Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. reported in 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1006 has directed to make payment of 12 per cent interest over the delayed payment of dues to the petitioner. 39. Likewise, in the case of Syed Abrar Ali (supra) again 12 per cent interest on the gratuity and other post retiral dues was directed to be given. Relevant paragraphs 11 and 15 are reproduced as under:- "11. Since the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for the delay in payment of gratuity, the Court comes to the definite conclusion that he is entitled to be paid interest on delayed payment of gratuity. 15. Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner on the total amount of gratuity paid for the period starting from 02.06.2003 till 01.08.2006. The amount of aforesaid interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this judgement and order is produced before the authorities concerned." Conclusion 40. The amount of aforesaid interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this judgement and order is produced before the authorities concerned." Conclusion 40. In view of the discussion made herein-above, the petition is Allowed. 41. The opposite parties are directed to make payment of post retiral dues forthwith to the petitioner. They shall also pay 8 per cent simple interest to the petitioner from the due date of post retiral dues, family pension and other terminal benefits as provided in the schedule till the date of actual payment to the petitioner.