1.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of this Writ Petition pursuant to the observations made by this Court in its order dated 01.03.2007, various dues of the petitioner have now been paid by the respondents. Respondent-Nagar Panchayat has made payment of pension and gratuity highly belated inasmuch as the pension was paid in August 2007 and gratuity in April 2008. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the said belated payments. The learned counsel for the respondents could not give any justification for this delay.
2.Having gone through the counter affidavit and particularly para 5, it appears that for the first time pension papers of petitioner were sent by Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Rajapur to Assistant Director Pension and Local Funds, Jhansi on 07.07.2007 which too received back being incomplete and thereafter, it appears that the respondent no. 3 completed the papers and sent again as a result whereof payment could be made to the petitioner on 22.08.2007 and in April 2008.
3.It is pertinent to note that for delay in payment of the aforesaid amount, respondents have nowhere said in the counter affidavit that fault lie on the petitioner. It is thus evident on account of laxity on the part of the respondents that payment of pension and gratuity got delayed.
4.It is evident that the respondents are responsible not the petitioner to cause undue delay in payment of retiral benefits to an employee i.e. petitioner particularly when no fault lie on the employee concerned. Deprecating attitude of authorities in harassing its retired employees with respect to payment of their retiral dues, this Court has allowed payment of interest on highly delayed payments, in Kunwar Bahadur Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2007 (8) ADJ 553 and has also observed as under :
"Interest on the amount of provident fund is not only compensatory but is a statutory liability of the respondents to pay the same for the reason that the amount deducted from the petitioner's salary remain with the respondents and they may have utilized the same for their own purpose hence entitling the petitioner for payment of interest on the said amount. Had the amount of provident fund been paid in time to the petitioner, he could have invested the same for better utilization so as to live an honerable life after retirement in the absence of any other source of earning livelihood . The attitude and conduct of the respondents borne out from the record is nothing but is reprehensible and should be condemned in strongest words. It is no doubt true that an employer for just and valid reasons and in exercise of power vested in it can defer or deny pension and other retiral benefits to an employee provided the action of the employer is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and such a power also emanates from statute or the relevant provisions having force of law. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own ex-employee who has served for a long time and has earned certain benefits under the rules recoverable after attaining the age of superannuation. Pension and retiral benefits are not bountee but right of an employee crystallized in deferred wages to which he is entitled under the rules after retirement and non payment thereof is clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it becomes more important for the public functionaries and the authorities to act with better sense of responsibility so that their ex-employee may not be subject to harassment at the old age when they have already retired and have to survive and maintain themselves and their family with the meagre amount payable in the form of retiral benefits. The respondents being a State Government and function through its officers appointed in various department is suppose to discharge his duty strictly in accordance with law as observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries.
In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or in action may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law."
5.For undue delayed payment of retiral dues to an employee, the Apex Court has held that suitable interest must be awarded so as to compensate the employee concerned. It has repeatedly been held in most of the cases where lawful dues of an employee are not paid within a reasonable time and that too without any lawful cause, a suitable interest must be awarded on the delayed payment to such employees. Deprecating such conduct/attitude on the part of the public functionaries, this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35807 of 2004 (Virendra Prakash Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 3.4.2007 has observed as under:-
"It is no doubt true that an employer for just and valid reasons and in exercise of power vested in it can defer or deny pension and other retiral benefits to an employee provided the action of the employer is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law and such a power also emanates from statute or the relevant provisions having force of law. In our system, the Constitution being supreme, yet the real power vest in the people of India since the Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own ex-employee who has served for a long time and has earned certain benefits under the rules recoverable after attaining the age of superannuation. Pension and retiral benefits are not bountee but right of an employee crystallized in deferred wages to which he is entitled under the rules after retirement and non payment thereof is clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it becomes more important for the public functionaries and the authorities to act with better sense of responsibility so that their ex-employee may not be subject to harassment at the old age when they have already retired and have to survive and maintain themselves and their family with the meagre amount payable in the form of retiral benefits.
The respondents being a Government Company wholly owned by the State of U.P. is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and its officers are public functionaries. As observed under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The respondents have the support of the entire machinery and the various powers of the statute and an ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of the State or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain the arbitrary and arrogant unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public functionaries."
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held if payment of retiral benefits are delayed without any justification, the employer must be asked to pay interest on such amount vide State of Kerala Vs. M.P. Nayyar, AIR 1985 SC 356 ; Charan Singh Vs. M/s. Birla Textile & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 2022 ; R.S. Dhule Vs. State of Haryana, (1998) 4 SCC 379 ; Vijai L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & ors., 2002 SCC (L&S) 278; and H.G. Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 885); (2008) 9 ADJ 344 : Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. And JT 2008 (1) SC 331, S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another. This, to my mind would apply with full force in present case also.
7.In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing respondent no. 3 to pay simple interest on delayed amount of pension and gratuity @ 8%. The aforesaid amount of interest shall be determined and paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 18.2.2011 yachna