Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7716 of 2020 Petitioner :- Banarsi Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bramh Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner the interest at the rate of 18% upon the delayed payment of Rs. 15,60,321/- from 01.04.2011 (after 03 months of petitioner's retirement) till 01.11.2017 (the actual date of its payment).
3. It appears from the record that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1994 in District Basti and against him Case Crime No. 857 of 1994, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 504, 506 I.P.C. has been registered. Ultimately, he was suspended vide order dated 23.11.1994, but after interference of the High Court, he was reinstated in service from 13.03.1997. The petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.10.2010 from the post of Head Constable from District Gorakhpur. In pending criminal proceeding arising, S.T. No. 91/95 along with S.T. No. 38/2009, trial was concluded and petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 10.04.2017. Relying upon the acquittal order, petitioner was also exonerated from departmental proceeding vide order dated 30.9.2017 along with all consequential benefits. His gratuity was due from the date of retirement, but the same was paid on 26.11.2017 and in light of Government Order dated 17.5.2021, he is entitled for interest on the delayed payment, which would be completed after three months from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made.
4. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No19172 of 2013 (Kameshwar Prasad Rai vs. State of UP & ors) decided on 19.7.2013. The order dated 19.7.2013 is quoted as under:
"1. Heard Sri B.N.Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was paid gratuity with extra ordinary delay of six years on the pretext that departmental enquiry is pending and he was under suspension though ultimately it culminated in a complete exoneration and, therefore, in view of para 1 of Government Order dated 17th May, 2001, Annexure 8 to the writ petition, petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which would be computed after three months from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made.
3. If retiral benefits are paid with extra ordinary delay, the Court should award suitable interest which is compensatory in nature so as to cause some solace to the harassed employee. No Government official should have the liberty of harassing a helpless employee or his heirs by withholding his/her lawful dues for a long time and thereafter to escape from any liability so as to boast that nobody can touch him even if he commits an ex facie illegal, unjust or arbitrary act. Every authority howsoever high must always keep in mind that nobody is above law. The hands of justice are meant not only to catch out such person but it is also the constitutional duty of Court of law to pass suitable orders in such matters so that such illegal acts may not be repeated, not only by him/her but others also. This should be a lesson to everyone committing such unjust act.
4. Interest on delayed payment on retiral dues has been upheld time and against in a catena of decision. This Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (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. 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 Vs. 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."
5. It has been followed and reiterated in O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 328; R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection, (1994) 6 SCC 589; S.R. Bhanrate Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 27; Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another, (1999) 3 SCC 438, and S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 3 SCC 44.
6. 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 Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2011 (2) ADJ 608 and, relying on Apex Court's 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 Vs. State of U.P. & others, (2008) 119 FLR 787, has awarded 12% interest in the said case.
7. Learned Standing Counsel having gone through the aforesaid Government Order and facts of this case could not make any submission which may disentitle the petitioner for the aforesaid interest.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner shall be paid interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which shall be computed after three months from the date of retirement till the date payment of gratuity is actually made in accordance with aforesaid Government Order dated 17.5.2001 read with earlier Government Orders dated 29.4.1983, 30.11.1984, 6.12.1994 and 28.9.1999, mentioned therein.
9. The amount of interest, computed, shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
5. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the said fact.
6. In view of the aforesaid , this petition is also allowed with the same terms and directions as given in the writ petition referred above.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Arvind