Baldev Singh vs H.P. State Electricity Board and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent Board as T-Mate on work charge basis. His services were regularized on 15.8.1972. The Petitioner retired from the post of Foreman(Line)on 31.3.2008. The present petition has been filed on 30.9.2009 by the Petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to release all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other consequential benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum till the date of realization of the amount.

A notice of the petition was issued to the Respondents, who filed their reply.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

The Petitioner has specified that retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other consequential benefits be granted to him alongwith interest at the rate of 18%. However, in the reply filed by the Respondents, they gave the following details of the retiral benefits released in favour of the Petitioner:

�Sl. No. Kind of retrial benefit Amount Paid vide cheque No.& Date

Final payment of GPF Rs. 8,06,749/- 560645 dt. 20.08.08

Retirement Gratuity i. Rs. 2,85,818/- ii. Rs. 61,837/- 233177 dt. 8.01.10 008010 dt. 19.2.10

Arrear of pension Rs. 30,709/- 233198 Dt. 6.2.10

Leave Encashment Rs. 2,24,590/- 233177 Dt. 8.1.10

Commuted value of pension Rs. 3,52,210 008003 Dt. 8.2.10�

The Respondents had also pleaded that since all these payments have been released to the Petitioner, the petition has become infructuous.

This Court will have to look into the payments made to the Petitioner, since the prayer made was in regard to the consequential benefits including three i.e. pension, gratuity and leave encashment, which were specified. In reply, the Respondents have pleaded that the Accounts Officer, to whom the papers were submitted, vide his letter dated 2.5.2009 had pointed out some irregularities in the pay fixation of the Petitioner and, therefore, time was taken, though the Petitioner was granted provisional pension at the rate of Rs. 9260/- per month w.e.f. 1.4.2008 vide order dated 14.11.2008. It was also pleaded that the final payment of GPF was made to the Petitioner vide cheque dated 20.8.2008.

To substantiate his plea that the Petitioner is entitled to interest on all the delayed payments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of arguments, had relied upon the decision in S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Another, a perusal of which shows that the Appellant cleared of the charges and retirement benefits were released to him after about four years since show cause/charge sheets issued to him in the last month of his retirement. The case was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration and the question of interest was to be considered by the High Court.

Another decision relied upon was in A. Sulekha v. N.A. Das and Ors. (2006) 13 SCC 399, wherein it was observed that there was no reason for any delay in payment of retiral benefits since the Department/College had taken a plea that some amount was due on account of missing books for which liability certificate was issued by the College within six months of Appellant''s retirement. It was held that the Appellant had a just cause to claim interest from the College and the College was directed to pay interest to the Appellant for a period of 3 years commencing after six months of his retirement and it was granted at the rate of 9% and in case there was a delay beyond 12 weeks, the rate of interest would be 12% per annum.

Rule 58 of the CCS (Pension) Rules provides as under:

Every Head of Office shall undertake the work of preparation of pension papers in Form 7 two years before the date on which a Government servant is due to retire on superannuation, or on the date on which he proceeds on leave preparatory to retirement, whichever is earlier.

Rule 59 of the rules ibid provides for stages for the completion of the pension papers and all the three stages are required to be completed not later than eight months prior to the date of retirement of the Government servant. According to Rule 60 of the rules ibid, the head of office shall complete Part-I of Form 7 not later than six months of the date of retirement of the Government servant, which should be read as six months prior to the retirement of the Government servant.

According to the reply filed by the Respondents, the matter was proceeded and the Accounts Officer vide letter dated 2.5.2009 had pointed out some irregularities in the pay fixation of the Petitioner, which were pertaining to various offices of the Respondents and sufficient time was required to settle the observation. The date on which the pension papers were moved has not been clearly pleaded by the Respondents, but it is clear that the papers were moved and since there were some irregularities in the pay fixation, it took time to settle the same. However, the Board had granted provisional pension vide order dated 14.11.2008 w.e.f. 1.4.2008. This was granted to the Petitioner after six months of his retirement and the final payment of GPF was also made within five months of his retirement and as such on both these counts, it cannot be said that there has been any delay in final payment of GPF or grant of provisional pension. However, the retirement gratuity was released in favour of the Petitioner on 8.1.2010 and 19.2.2010 i.e. almost after one year and 9-10 months of his retirement. The arrears of pension were also released to the Petitioner on 6.2.2010 i.e. in less than two years while the payment of leave encashment was also made on 8.1.2010. Commuted pension was also released in favour of the Petitioner on 8.2.2010. It is true that the papers are to be moved six months in advance and in case an employee who is remained posted at different places, the period may be taken at the maximum one year and he has to be given the retiral benefits at the earliest.

Therefore, keeping in view all the above facts, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner should have been released all the retiral benefits and other payments, at the most, within one year of the date of his retirement. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the amounts released to him after one year of his retirement i.e. after 31.3.2009. The Respondents shall calculate the interest for the delayed payments and it shall be payable to the Petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum, as directed above, within a period of four months from today, failing which, the Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereafter and the Respondents shall be liable to recover the additional amount of interest payable to the Petitioner from the erring officials of the Respondent Board for such delay, if any.

With the above directions, the with petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.