Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61562 of 2016 Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bramh Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
The present writ petition has been preferred assailing the validity of the order impugned dated 3.9.2016 passed by the second respondent whereby claim of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits has been rejected.
It appears from the record in question that the petitioner has retired as Senior Clerk from the office of Executive Engineer Obra Dam Division Obra, District Sonebhadra on 28.2.2015. Once his retiral benefits has not been paid well within reasonable time, he has approached to this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19345 of 2016 (Suresh Kumar Maurya Vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2016 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the competent authority. Consequently, by the order impugned the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.
At the very outset, Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition precisely on the ground that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the Authority has clearly proceeded to observe that the petitioner was absent from duty without leave w.e.f. 2.11.2013 to 28.11.2013 and the salary was not ensured for the said period and as such continuity of the said period was not certified. Admittedly, after one year, the petitioner had given medical certificate which was eventually approved by the competent authority, therefore, so far as the delay of six months in payment, the same is attributable to the petitioner and the department could not be blamed for it. More so the official residence was vacated by the petitioner admittedly in the month of August 2015 even though he retired way back on 28.2.2015, therefore, delay of one year for release of entire retiral benefits cannot be claimed to be inordinate delay.
So far as the factual situation, learned counsel for the petitioner utterly failed to substantiate his claim wherein the liability can be fixed upon the department for delayed payment and the entire payment has been ensured to the petitioner on 27.1.2016.
In the facts and circumstances, the Court is also of the opinion that there is no inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits and as such, is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.12.2019 A.K.Srivastava