Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12235 of 2013
Petitioner :- Smt. Zubeida Khan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Asim Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
1. Heard Shri Asim Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State and Shri Satish Chaturvedi, for the respondent-authorities.
2. The petitioner is a widow of Mr. Zahidullah Khan who was working as District Social Welfare Officer and died on 30.4.1994 in harness leaving his widow and a minor daughter of two years at the time of death. For post death dues, petitioner requested the respondents vide letters dated 18.3.1995 and 2.1.1996 but respondents delayed payments inasmuch as dues of late officer were paid in following manner:
3. We do not find in the counter affidavit any valid justification for such highly belated payment of dues of deceased employee and it clearly shows that petitioner was made to run from pillar to post and there is massive callousness and negligence on the part of official of the respondent entitling the petitioner not only compensatory interest on delayed payments, but also exemplary costs.
4. It is now well settled that retiral dues and pension are not bounty but deferred wages earned by an employee after a long service tenure. After retirement retiral dues must be paid to employee concerned within a month unless there is any valid justification or reason which is not in the case in hand.
5. Repeatedly it has been held that whenever retiral dues of an employee has been paid belatedly, without any valid justification, the same should be paid with interest. Interest on delayed payment on retiral dues has been upheld time and against in a catena of decision. This Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No.34804 of 2004) decided on 06.12.2005 held:
"Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. In the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR-750, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following months. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay panel interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement."
In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained."
6. The above exposition of law has been reiterated in O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India and others (1987) 4 SCC 328, R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (1994) 6 SCC 589, S.R. Bhanrate Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 27, Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another (1999) 3 SCC 438 and S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another (2008) 3 SCC 44.
7. A Division Bench of this Court has also considered the question of award of interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits recently in Rajeshwar Swarup Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others 2011 (2) ADJ 608 and, relying on the Apex Court decision in Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR 750 and its several follow up as also an earlier Division Bench judgement of this Court Smt. Kavita Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others (2008) 119 FLR 787, has awarded 12% interest in the said case.
8. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that delayed payment of dues to petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. There was no justification at all for respondents to delay payment thereof.
9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent that on the belated payments of dues as detailed above, petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of Rs. 8% per annum (simple) computable after one month from the date of death of late Mr. Zahidullah Khan till the amounts actually paid. The amount of interest shall be computed and paid to petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled for the costs which we quantify to Rs.25,000/-.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Ravi Prakash