Ramawati Devi vs State of U.P.

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner''s husband who was working as Beldar expired on 29.3.1993. In consequence thereof petitioner was appointed under Dying in Harness Rule but post retiral dues which includes group insurance amount of petitioner were not finalized and released in favour of petitioner. It has been stated by the petitioner that a time barred cheque amounting Rs.31087/ has been issued to the petitioner in consequence thereof amount could not be withdrawn. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that provisional pension was sanctioned in the year 1993 but papers were signed only in the year 1997. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of respondent with regard to payment of post retiral dues the present writ petition has been preferred. By an interim order dated 1.9.2006 this Court had directed to release group insurance amount and family pension within three months. The submission of the petitioner''s counsel is that the entire family pension and group insurance amount was released in favour of petitioner on 27.11.2006. From the pleading on record there appears to be highly arbitrary act on the part of opposite parties. Once the petitioner was sanctioned family pension in the year 1993 then respondents were not justified in keeping the matter pending up to the year 1997. Even for the payment of provisional pension a time barred cheque has been given. Prima facie, there appears to be intentional and deliberate attempt on the part of some employee who deal with matter to harass the petitioner for extraneous reasons. In the writ petition it has been pleaded that one Sri Banwari Lal is behind the plight of petitioner with regard to delayed payment of post retiral dues.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Dhar Pandey v. Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and others, reported in 2008 (26) LCD 1751, after considering the various pronouncement of Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that in case government employee is not paid post retiral dues within reasonable time because of no fault on his/her part then he shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 10 per cent. Relevant portion from the judgment of Sri Dhar Pandey is reproduced as under:

�3���Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court reported in (2007) 3 SCC 545; Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India and 1997 (15) LCD 1163; C.M. Wahal (since deceased, represented by his substituted Lrs) v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Varanasi and another.

After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, it was incumbent upon the respondents to pay the entire gratuity, C.P.F. and other dues within reasonable period but were paid after more than one year.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to that extent and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the period calculated after lapse of three months from the due date of payment i.e. from the date of conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.�

The other judgments relied upon by the petitioners'' counsel are 2002 (20) LCD 720, Satish Chandra Goel v. The Chief Development Officer, Saharanpur and others and 2002 (1) LBESR 949 (All), Radhika Devi v. Union of India and others.

In view of above, writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent to the petitioner immediately from the date of death of petitioner''s husband.

Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of U.P. is also directed to hold an enquiry and find out who is responsible for the delayed payment of post retiral dues and take action in accordance to law. It shall be open to the Secretary, PWD, Government of U.P. to recover the amount payable under interest in pursuance to present judgment from a person who is at fault. Let the compliance report be sent to this Court also.

Learned Standing counsel and learned counsel for the petitioner shall communicate the order passed by this Court today to the Secretary forthwith.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

(Petition allowed)