Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59269 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Lalita Sachan And 8 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has been preferred for a direction being issued commanding the respondents to pay interest upon the honorarium which was payable to the petitioners for the period 1 April 2011 to June 2012. Since admittedly this honorarium had not been released in favour of the petitioners, they were constrained to instituted Writ A No. 1332 of 2016 which was disposed of on 13 January 2016 in the following terms:
“Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Petitioners who are 10 in number are seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of salary for the period from 01.04.2011 to June, 2012 with interest.
In respect of their claim, the petitioners are stated to have preferred a representation before the respondent no.4-Child Development Project Officer, Fatehpur on 05.10.2015 under receiving of the same date, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition but it is stated that no order has been passed thereon.
No useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.4-Child Development Project Officer, Fatehpur to decide the pending representation dated 05.10.2015 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
The petitioner shall also provide a copy of the representation dated 05.10.2015 along with certified copy of this order to respondent no.4.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.”
Honorarium was thereafter ultimately disbursed in 2016. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State respondents, the only explanation which has been proffered and which stands contained in paragraph 10 thereof is that the honorarium due to inadvertent and clerical mistake was credited to the accounts of persons other than the petitioners. The fact however, that the honorarium for the period April 2011 to June 2012 was ultimately paid only in 2016 is not disputed.
It is in this context that the following observations as made by the Division Bench of the Court while deciding Special Appeal No. 99 of 2015 [Indra Bahadur Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others] would be apposite:-
“The appellant is not at fault and there is no suggestion to the effect that it was because of the conduct of the appellant that the payment was delayed. There was no enquiry pending against the appellant nor was there any valid justification to withhold a portion of the amount initially. Similarly there was absolutely no reason or justification for the State to issue a cheque in the wrong name, as a result of which encashment of the amount was delayed. Retiral dues are not a bounty or charity but constitute an entitlement. The appellant who was a class-IV employee was made to move this Court on two occasions, first for disposal of his representation for interest and thereafter against the order denying him interest. There had been a clear dereliction on the part of the officials of the State in processing the claim of the appellant expeditiously, firstly withholding the part of the claim and later issuing a cheque in the wrong name.
In these circumstances, the claim of interest was sustainable. The learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no willful delay where the facts of the present case are indicative that there was a clear dereliction on the part of the officials of the State.
In these circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall be paid interest computed at 9% per annum on the provident fund amount from the due date until it was actually paid to the appellant. Since the appellant had already been paid the provident dues, the interest shall be payable to him no later than within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order computed at the rate of 9% per annum as stated above. In the event of any further delay beyond the period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the State shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum until payment is made.”
Accordingly and following the principles enunciated in Indra Bahadur Srivastava and in the absence of any justification having been offered, the prayer of the petitioner is liable to be granted.
Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall consequently be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the total honorarium which was payable to the petitioners between the period 1 April 2011 to June 2012 in accordance with law. The interest shall be payable up to the date when the honorarium was ultimately credited to the account of the petitioners.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 LA/-