JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner after his retirement had been paid the amount of his provident fund due to him. But the Gratuity and other terminal benefits were not paid to him on the ground as disclosed in the counter-affidavit that there was an audit objection in respect of certain accounts when the petitioner was posted in Hewett Road Branch. Such statements were made in paragraph 2 of the counter-affidavit. In rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has clarified that he was posted in Hewett Road Branch sometimes in between 1980 and 1984. The audit objection was in respect of the provident fund amount of Nagar Mahapalika. Allahabad in respect of their employees that were transferred to the Sundry Creditor's account in the bank. Nagar Mahapalika was asked to furnish the details of the individual account number of the employees so that the provident fund amount received by the bank could be credited in the respective individual account of the employees. The Nagar Mahapalika had furnished the details of some of its employees without furnishing the details of the others. Therefore, part of the amount was transferred to the individual accounts. After such transfer, a sum of Rs. 1,50.000 still remained in the Sundry Creditor's Account and could not be credited in the individual accounts till the petitioner was in Hewett Road Branch. It is alleged that on this ground, the audit objection was raised. In paragraphs 4 and 5, the above statement has been made in the rejoinder-affidavit. Whereas in paragraph 6. the petitioner has contended that he was never informed about the audit objection until it was disclosed in the counter-affidavit. Neither any notice to show cause was ever issued on the petitioner nor there was any finding that the petitioner was responsible nor there was any material to show that the bank had ever suffered any loss.
2. If there was an audit objection in respect of an account in 1984, in that event, it was open to the bank to take steps so long the petitioner was in employment. The petitioner had retired sometimes in 1995 and this ground of audit objection is being raised only when the retirement benefits became due, that too, by a letter dated 13th July, 1996. Nothing has been disclosed that the alleged audit objection was ever communicated to the petitioner during his tenure in service.
3. In such circumstances, after hearing Mr. A. K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and T. P. Singh. learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that the audit objection against withholding the disbursement of the retiral benefits does not seem to be bona fide and appears to have been lapsed by reason of an inordinate delay and laches and negligence on the part of the respondents. Bank having not come out with cases that the bank had ever suffered any loss on account of such audit objection due to inaction on the part of the petitioner. it would not justify delay in or denial of payment of retiral benefits. Even, if there was any audit objection, the same ought to have been clarified and resolved in the meantime. An audit objection cannot be kept pending for an indefinite period. After a person has put in his youth and the prime of life in the service of the bank, he is entitled to receive his retirement benefits which is not a charity shown to him but is a deferred payment which he had earned by reason of his service rendered.
4. Therefore, the respondent shall pay the balance retiral benefits payable to the petitioner as early as possible preferably, within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is communicated to the concerned respondent. The amount due shall carry simple interest @ 12% during the period it became due and till it is paid.
5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus do accordingly issue.
However, there will be no order as to costs.