Dr. Om Prakash Saxena vs State of MP and Others

Sujoy Paul J.

In this petition filed by the petitioner the only prayer is for grant of interest on delayed payment of residuary gratuity and pension. Brief facts necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter are as under:-

(1) Petitioner received benefit of second Kramonnati in the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 w.e.f. 19.4.1999. The fixation was accordingly made. The provisional basic pension and anticipatory DCRG to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The said provisional pension with dearness relief up to 31.12.2010 was deposited in the bank account of petitioner. On 24.01.2011 Pension Payment Order (PPO) and two cheques for pension and gratuity were given to petitioner, which were deposited in the bank.

(2) The petitioner submits that ultimate payment was made to him belatedly and non-payment of the retiral dues in time was unjustified. He submits that the reasons for delayed in payment were solely attributable to the department and no fault can be found with the petitioner.

(3) In the return, the respondents have stated that the petitioner was required to fill up the pension papers by orders dated 7.6.2005 and 15.11.2006 but petitioner did not fulfill the aforesaid requirement. It is stated that there was a dispute about grant of Kramonnati from 19.4.1999 whereas the petitioner was entitled from 1.8.2003. It is further submitted that Kramonnati benefits were required to be given from a later date but was erroneously given to the petitioner from 19.4.1999. Although the petitioner succeeded against the respondents and this Court made it clear that the petitioner is not entitled to get Kramonnati benefits from 19.4.1999, a SLP is pending before Supreme Court. It is stated that only on 23.9.2010 it was decided to give benefit of the scheme to the petitioner and petitioner submitted the papers of pension only thereafter. The petitioner, in turn, submits that all formalities were done in time and those documents are already on record. By placing reliance on document dated 21.10.2004 filed along with list of documents by the Government, the petitioner submits that it contains three signatures of the petitioner and a joint photograph with the spouse. Thus, the contention that petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement and did not provide three signatures is factually incorrect and is an attempt to justify the illegal action.

(4) This matter was taken up on 5.10.2012. The respondents took a stand on that date that certain signatures in specified format were required to be filed by the petitioner and since the same were not submitted by him, delay occurred for which the department cannot be blamed. This Court asked a specific question and directed the respondents to file a return to show if signature and formalities were completed, when petitioner completed the same and when the respondents proceeded therefrom.

(5) In turn, an additional return is filed by the respondents. In para 3, a stand is taken that a new format for drawl of pension was introduced and the petitioner submitted his pension papers in the new format. Again, alleged deficiency of three specimen signatures by the petitioner is raised in this additional return. Lastly, it is stated in para 7 that the petitioner on 12.11.2010 had submitted the requisite declaration in the form of indemnity bond/papers and then respondents followed the procedure, issued PPO and paid the remaining amount. A careful reading of this additional return shows that initially the impression is created by the respondents that the pension is delayed because of introduction of new format then petitioner did not submit three specimen signatures and when the requisite declaration was given, they have fulfilled the formalities. However, a careful scrutiny of the documents shows that the aforesaid stand is nothing but a lame excuse to cover the delay on the part of the department. The impression is created as if the petitioner had submitted specimen signatures on 12.11.2010 or filled up the revised pension papers on 12.11.2010, however the said document filed by the respondents dated 12.11.2010 shows that it pertains to the Kramonnati benefits. The petitioner had succeeded from this Court pursuant to which he became entitled to get benefit from 1.4.1999. Against that order, a SLP is pending. Pending SLP, a declaration is obtained from the petitioner that if he loses the battle from the Supreme Court, he will refund the amount of Kramonnati. Thus, this declaration dated 12.11.2010 has nothing to do with the revised pension format or specimen signatures etc. The petitioner has successfully established that specimen signatures were given by him at proper time on 21.10.2004.

(6) In this view of the matter, it is clear that the delay in paying the entire retiral dues to the petitioner is solely attributable to the respondents. This is settled in law that in case of such delay the pensioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and others, and AIR 2000 SC 3513a

(7) On the basis of aforesaid analysis, in my opinion, the respondents are responsible for delayed payment of complete retiral dues. For the reasons stated above, petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the delayed payment from the date of entitlement to the date of actual payment to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be positively done within sixty days.

(8) Petition is allowed. No costs.