Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.
Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Standing Counsel and Sri D. K. Seth, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4.
There can be no better example than this case, which is a classical illustration of sorry state of affairs, whimsical attitude of State authorities and how the functionaries of the State Government are functioning, resulting in mental agony, all sorts of harassment and injury to a Government Servant, which is difficult to be compensated.
Petitioner, while working on the post of Block Development Officer attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1983. Prior to retirement, petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and was served with a charge sheet on 30.8.1982. Ultimately, the Agricultural Production Commissioner passed the punishment order dated 19.4.1983. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Sitapur passed an order of recovery. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, which was dismissed. Thereafter he assailed the order of punishment as well as the order of Tribunal before this Court by filing a writ petition No. 1345 (SB) of 1991. This Court while entertaining the writ petition stayed the order of recovery dated 22.6.1983. Ultimately, this writ petition was allowed by this Court and the recovery order for a sum of Rs. 75,066.15 was set aside.
In the instant writ petition, we are not concerned with the aforesaid litigation as the main relief sought in the writ petition is for payment of interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment of post retiral dues.
It appears that during pendency of the aforesaid litigation, the petitioner worked on the post of Block Development Officer, Mahauli, District Sitapur and ultimately retired from the said post. The opposite parties without any rhyme and reason did not pay the post-retiral dues. Vide order dated 4.8.1984, the Agricultural Production Commissioner passed an order granting provisional pension of Rs. 460/- w.e.f. 1.7.1983. It is not in dispute that on 24.8.1998, the State Government issued an order for revising pension of the petitioner, who had been retired prior to 1.1.1986 and in view of the Government Order dated 24.8.1998, the District Development Officer, Sitapur passed an order for revising pension of the petitioner. Petitioner made his sincere efforts and devoted a lot of time of retired life in getting his post-retiral dues but all his efforts went in vain. In the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that there is delay in payment of post-retiral dues, but for it, the petitioner himself is liable. It has also been stated that the Treasury Officer, Lucknow, after adjusting a sum of Rs.75,066.15/- which was to be recovered from the petitioner, paid a sum of Rs.2,82,796 to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 796508 dated 14.8.2001.
The fact remains that the petitioner had retired in the year 1983. It shows total indifference on the part of the respondents towards suffering of the petitioner, who had served them during the best part of his life. This Court does not approve such attitude towards employees by the respondent. The inordinate delay in payment of post-retiral dues is substantiated by the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Accountant General, Allahabad, who has also been arrayed as opposite party no.4 in the writ petition. There is no dispute in the fact that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.1983. The Accountant General in his counter affidavit has stated in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner's pension papers were sent to his office vide letter dated 19.11.1999 for the first time alongwith a letter of recovery dated 27.12.1999. His pension papers were returned vide letter dated 29.3.2000 to the concerned department as complete papers of service book were not sent. It has further been stated that pension papers were received back from the department through letter dated 22.2.2001 i.e. about 11 months after the letter dated 29.3.2000. It was also indicated in the said letter dated 22.2.2001 that for providing the copy of service book, it will take some more time. The petitioner also wrote a letter for humanitarian consideration and for payment of his pensionary dues. Vide letter dated 20.6.2001, the authority for payment was issued. Lastly, it has been clarified by the opposite party no.4 that there is no delay on the part of the respondent no.4. As regard payment of interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity, as per G.O. No. Sa-3-664/Das-971/80 dated 29.4.1983 and No. Sa-3-1519/Das 1997 dated 15.7.1997, the action is required to be taken by the concerned department, not by the respondent no.4. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, one thing is crystal clear that there is an inordinate delay in processing the pension papers and payment of post-retiral dues on the part of the Officers of the Department concerned. Needless to observe that even the provisions of the U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995 were violated Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired Government Servant claims interest for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/Instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. The retirement benefits were payable to the petitioner after the date of retirement ie. 30.6.1983, but it took of about 16 years by the Department in sending the complete papers to the Accountant General, which shows the callous attitude of the Officers of the Department. Owing to lethargic attitude of the Officers of the Department in sending the complete papers to the Accountant General, the petitioner was put to serious distress. Because of non completion of necessary formalities and sending complete papers, the Accountant General could issue the authority only on 20.6.2001, when the necessary papers were made available by the Department.
Right to receive pension is a fundamental right which can be curtailed only in the manner provided in the Constitution. In Salabuddin Mohd. Yunus vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1905, it was held that pension is property within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and it is also a right under Article 19 (1) (f) which could not be restricted even as provided under clause (5) of Article 19 and that clause has no application to the right to receive pension.
In Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449, the Apex Court observed that the pension and other retiral benefits cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated for the satisfaction of any other dues outstanding against the retired employee. The aforesaid principle was reiterated in R. Kapur vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and Publication) Income Tax; (1994) 6 SCC 589.
In H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation (2003) 3 SCC 40, the Apex Court observed that employees on retirement have valuable rights to get gratuity and any culpable delay in payment of gratuity must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest.
In Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited and another vs. N. Asokan (2009) 16 SCC, when eight years' delay was found in payment of gratuity, the Apex Court directed for payment of interest on the delayed payment of gratuity in compliance with Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
In Gorakhpur University vs. Dr Shitla Prasad Nagendra (2001) 6 SCC 591 and in series of other judgments, the Apex Court has reiterated that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by the government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua vs. State of Hariyana and another reported in 2008(3) SCC 44 has held that interest of delayed payment of retirement benefits legally sustainable in view of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:-
"In the circumstances, prima-facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution."
Thus the aforesaid decisions makes it clear that the claim of interest on delayed payment of retiral dues flows from the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Claim for interest cannot be held to be a stale claim as right to claim interest on delayed payment of retiral dues accrues due to continuing wrong committed by the State respondents for withholding the payment of the petitioner's retiral dues causing continuous injury to the petitioner until such payment is made.
The attitude of indifference cannot be forgiven. In the present case, the delay in payment of retiral dues is about 18 long years, which is entirely unjustified and cannot be treated to be reasonable by any stretch of imagination. The Department itself is responsible for bringing down such a situation, for which adequate compensation should be paid to the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances, we find that award of a lump sump amount as interest would secure the ends of justice and compensate the loss caused to the petitioner on account of interest which he could have earned, if he had deposited the amount in bank or in post office coupled with mental harassment with which he had undergone during these long years.
Taking into consideration the holistic view of the matter and considering the very peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we quantify Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) as interest on the delayed payment of post-retiral dues and direct the opposite parties to pay the same within a maximum period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order with the Commissioner, Rural Development, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow. However, if the department feels that any particular officer is responsible for these laches and indifference, in that event, after fixing the responsibility, it would be open for the department to recover such amount of compensation from the said responsible officer, even if he has retired in the meantime.
The writ petition stands allowed in above terms.
Dt.14.2.2012 lakshman