Shaffique, J. Petitioner in W.P(C) No. 21749/2010 has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 13.7.2010.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts. P2 and P4 orders passed by the Government. By Ext. P2, the Government declined the request of the petitioner seeking for interest on delayed payment of his Death-cum- Retirement benefits. By Ext. P4, review petition filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Government.
3. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner retired as Civil Surgeon on 30.4.2007. His pensionary benefits were settled only on 25.11.2008. It is contended that there is gross delay in paying the retirement benefits, as a result of which respondents are liable to pay interest.
4. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the statement in paragraph 3 of Ext. P2 order, dismissed the writ petition observing that there is no culpable delay on the part of the respondents.
5. In paragraph 3 of Ext. P2 order, it was indicated that though the petitioner was under obligation to submit the pensionary claims one year prior to the date of retirement, he submitted the application only on 19.12.2006. The District Medical Officer (Health), Thrissur, forwarded the said papers on 22.2.2007 to the Director of Health Services, who, thereafter forwarded the same to the Office of the Accountant General on 22.2.2007. The report of admissible pension claims from the Accountant General was received only on 6.9.2008. The Director of Health Services issued sanction order for all the pensionary claims and No Objection Certificate on 13.10.2008. Thereafter, the benefits were settled on 25.11.2008.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the delay on the part of the Accountant General's Office has not been properly explained. The delay is culpable and in normal circumstances, the Accountant General should have completed the process within a period of six months. Failure to do so has resulted delay in payment and therefore the petitioner is entitled to claim interest on the amount of retirement benefits. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) & Others, (1994) 2 SCC 240, wherein the Supreme Court held that once it is established that an amount legally due to a party has not been paid within a reasonable time, the party responsible for withholding the same has to pay interest at the rate fixed by the court. In that case, there was a direction to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed payment of retirement benefits. The Supreme Court was considering the question relating to payment of retirement benefits. A person retired as Chief Justice of the High Court on 27.7.1987. Retirement benefits was paid only after considerably long period. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was unavoidable delay in payment of retirement benefits.
7. Another judgment relied upon is D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 894. In that case, the delay was for a period of about 4 years and a direction was issued to pay interest @ 9% on the delayed payment.
8. Yet another judgment relied upon is Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. & Others, (2001) 9 SCC 687. Herein also, there was delay of about two years in payment of retirement benefits. There was a direction to pay interest @ 18% p.a.
9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would contend that the whole contention raised by the appellant is with reference to the delay caused in the Office of the Accountant General. The Accountant General is not a party to the proceedings. As far as the respondents are concerned, though there is a liability to pay DCRG benefits within a reasonable time, since Accountant General is not a party to proceedings and the delay was caused in the Office of the Accountant General, the respondents are not liable for the delay. Normally, the Office of the Accountant General has to issue the report within a reasonable time. This might be an instance where the said authority would have called for some clarification, which has resulted in the delay. Therefore, as far as the respondents are concerned, it is not possible for the respondents to explain the delay which had occurred in the Office of the Accountant General. That apart, it is contended that as far as the Director of Health Service is concerned, the proposal was sent to the Office of the Accountant General on the very next day. It is also contended that under normal circumstances, pension applications had to be submitted one year prior to the date of retirement. Since there was disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, he had submitted the application only after the disciplinary proceedings were dropped. The pension papers were submitted on 19.12.2006. Immediately thereafter, action was taken to send it to the Office of the Accountant General. It was merely on account of the delay on the part of the Accountant General's Office that the benefits could be paid only by 25.11.2008.
10. Having regard to the fact that though the petitioner is justified in making a claim, in so far as the Accountant General is not a party to the aforesaid lis, apparently explanation from the said office was required to come to a conclusion regarding the question of delay. It might be an instance where there was delay in the Office of the Accountant General due to several factors. As far as the respondents are concerned, there was no delay at all. True that as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, State is responsible to pay retirement benefits. But, since the delay was on the part of the Office of the Accountant General, who is not a party to the lis, State cannot be directed to explain the said delay and pay interest.
11. Under these circumstances, we do not find any delay on the part of the respondents in the writ petition.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Chief Justice Tds/ (True copy) Sd/-
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
P.S to Judge.