Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 781 (ALL)

Kusum Lata Singh v. State of U. P.

2025-05-13

VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN

body2025
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- " 1:- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith sanction and disburse the amount of encashment of Earn Leave, which has been fallen due to petitioner on the date of her superannuation i.e. 31/03/2018, with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of entitlement till date of actual payment. 2:- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation dated 14/03/2024 (Annexure No. 2 to writ petition) of petitioner, within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. On 23.4.2024 this Court has passed the following order :- " The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow, the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur and the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur will show cause by their own affidavits why the petitioner's dues on account of leave encashment have not been paid to her till date. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the Government Girls Inter College, Gorakhpur and retired on 31.03.2018 from A.D. Government Girls Inter College, Gorakhpur upon attaining the age of superannuation. Prima facie, there is no reason why the petitioner's dues on account of earned leave encashment should not have been paid. Cause shall be shown by each of the three respondents bearing that in mind. Lay as fresh on 02.05.2024. Let this order be communicated to the Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, U.P., Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, the Joint Director of Education, VIIth Region Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur and the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gorakhpur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours." 4. In pursuance thereof, personal affidavit of the Director of Education was filed before this Court and on 2.5.2024 this Court has passed the following order :- " Personal affidavits on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3and 4 has been filed by Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel in Court today. Let these affidavit be taken on record and numbered by the Office. In paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj/Lucknow, it is averred: "6. 2, 3and 4 has been filed by Mr. Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel in Court today. Let these affidavit be taken on record and numbered by the Office. In paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary Education, U.P. Prayagraj/Lucknow, it is averred: "6. That in furtherance of the aforesaid leave encashment sanction order dated 25.04.2024, the Finance ad Account Officer (Secondary Education), Gorakhpur has on 27.04.2024 credited the amount of Rs. 2,01,600/- in the saving Bank account of petitioner vide Token No. 3224332066." Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,01,600/- has been credited to his account towards leave encashment, but says that it has been paid without interest. Learned Counsel for the petitioner presses her claim to award of interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment. Treating the personal affidavits filed today in Court to be counter affidavits, this petition is admitted. Learned Standing Counsel may file a further counter affidavit on the issue why interest be not awarded. The said affidavit shall be filed, within two weeks. List for orders on 17.05.2023." 5. In compliance to the order dated 2.5.2024, affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State on 15.5.2024 stating that there is no provision for providing interest on the delayed payment of the leave encashment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had retired on 31.3.2018 from the post of Assistant Teacher in A.D. Government Girls Inter College, Gorakhpur and the payment in respect of the leave encashment of the petitioner was not paid, as a result of the same the writ petition was filed wherein on the direction of this Court the respondents on the order dated 23.4.2024 of this Court has released the leave encashment amount in favour of the petitioner which was received on 25.4.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is an extraordinary delay in releasing the leave encashment amount which has resulted loss to the petitioner and no explanation has been forwarded. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no provision for payment of interest and as such interest has not been granted. 8. It is to be seen that petitioner being an employee and after retirement is entitled for all retiral dues within time. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no provision for payment of interest and as such interest has not been granted. 8. It is to be seen that petitioner being an employee and after retirement is entitled for all retiral dues within time. In the present case although the petitioner had retired on 31.3.2018, however, leave encashment dues have been released on 25.4.2024 i.e. almost after six years. 9. It is further to be seen that retiral dues of the employees are the property of the employee under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and unexplained delay on the part of the respondents for releasing the dues is neither acceptable nor permissible in law. In equity, the employee is entitled for interest on the delayed payment as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another , (2008) 3 SCC 44 . " 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the appellant retired from service on June 30, 1998. It is also un-disputed that at the time of retirement from service, the appellant had completed more than three decades in Government Service. Obviously, therefore, he was entitled to retiral benefits in accordance with law. True it is that certain charge- sheets/ show cause notices were issued against him and the appellant was called upon to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. It is, however, the case of the appellant that all those actions had been taken at the instance of Mr. Quraishi against whom serious allegations of mal- practices and mis-conduct had been levelled by the appellant which resulted in removal of Mr. Quraishi from the post of Secretary, Irrigation. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. The said Mr. Quraishi then became Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister. Immediately thereafter charge-sheets were issued to the appellant and proceedings were initiated against him. The fact remains that proceedings were finally dropped and all retiral benefits were extended to the appellant. But it also cannot be denied that those benefits were given to the appellant after four years. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well- founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are Statutory Rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence Statutory Rules, Administrative Instructions or Guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission ofthe learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of bounty is, in our opinion, well-founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." 10. It is further to be seen that no explanation has been given by the respondents as to why there was delay in payment of the leave encashment dues. Once there is no justification, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of retirement of the petitioner till the date of actual payment. The aforesaid interest shall be paid by respondent no. 2 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within said period, then the petitioner would be entitled to penal compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day in addition to interest above-mentioned. 11. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.