Syed Abrar Ali vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner with the prayer to issue a direction to the opposite parties to pay all post retiral dues with interest for inordinate delay in making payment.

It has been admitted at bar that on 1.8.2006 the entire amount of gratuity has been paid to the petitioner and the total amount of pension has also been sanctioned which the petitioner has been drawing since 1.8.2006. However, it has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there are certain dues such as the dues of group insurance for the period relating to petitioner''s services at Basic Shiksha Parishad, some amount of G.P.F. and amount of leave encashment, which have not been paid.

Learned Counsel for the opposite parties states that for non-payment of aforesaid legally admissible amounts to the petitioner, the matter has been referred to the Accountant General Office by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, insisted that on account of inordinate delay in payment of gratuity, opposite parties should be saddled with the liability of paying interest for the delay in making said payment for the reason that delay cannot, in any manner, be attributed to the petitioner.

The petitioner while working as accountant in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda retired on 31.12.1997. With effect from 1.1.1998, he was paid provisional pension. In the meantime, relating to certain allegations of embezzlement, an F.I.R. was lodged on 29.5.1998 which was being investigated by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW). Before conclusion of the investigation by the Economic Offence Wing, Basic Shiksha Adhikari recommended the case for payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner by means of his letter dated 7.4.2000 wherein it has been stated that since no departmental proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated, neither any order under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations has been passed for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner. The letter dated 7.4.2000 further stated that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged embezzlement.

Based on the aforesaid finding, Basic Shiksha Adhikari by means of his letter dated 7.4.2000 recommended the case of the petitioner for payment of post retiral dues to the Assistant Director (Basic Education), Faizabad Division, Faizabad. However, despite the aforesaid recommendation, except for payment of provisional pension payment of other retiral dues such as gratuity etc. was not made to the petitioner.

Accordingly, petitioner on the basis of aforesaid report of Basic Shiksha Adhikari moved a Miscellaneous Application in this writ petition before this Court and this Court on 25.7.2000 passed an order directing the opposite parties to pay post retiral dues to the petitioner or show cause. However, even thereafter no efforts were made by the opposite parties to make payment of gratuity to the petitioner. Ultimately, payment of gratuity and full pension was made by the opposite parties only on 1.8.2006, that too, only when Economic Offence Wing informed the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda that after investigation nothing against the petitioner was found. The said information was submitted by the Economic Offence Wing by means of letter dated 28.2.2006.

Placing reliance on two judgments of this Court, namely, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P., Gayatri and Mukesh Kumar and Guru Charan Singh Bagga Vs. State of U.P. and others, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the delayed payment of gratuity, interest at the appropriate rate should be directed to be paid to the petitioner.

Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner to enquire into alleged charges of embezzlement. So far as the criminal case which started on lodging of the F.I.R. on 29.5.1998 is concerned, the Investigating Agency i.e. Economic Offence Wing after investigation found nothing in the matter against the petitioner. The Economic Offence Wing appears to have intimated to the Finance and Account Officer in the office of Basic Shiksha, Gonda that petitioner has not been found guilty in any manner in the said criminal case by means of letter dated 28.2.2006. Thus, delay which has occurred cannot be in any manner attributed to the petitioner.

Since the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for the delay in payment of gratuity, the Court comes to the definite conclusion that he is entitled to be paid interest on delayed payment of gratuity.

For what period and at what rate interest needs to be paid depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, way back on 7.4.2000, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari after probing into the matter had made strong recommendation to the higher authorities that post retiral dues to the petitioner be paid. It is also noteworthy that no departmental proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner, neither any order as required u/s 351-A of Civil Services Regulations was passed. So far as the delay in conclusion of the investigation which started on lodging of F.I.R. on 29.5.1998 is concerned, there is nothing on record which can establish that such delay is attributable or can be attributed to the petitioner.

However, letter dated 2.6.2003 written by the concerned officer of Economic Offence Wing to the State Government has been brought on record as Annexure SRA-1 annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 25.7.2010 filed by the petitioner which shows that no evidence against the petitioner was found during investigation. Information about the investigation which stood completed way back in the year 2003, was however, not given to the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gonda. It could be given only by means of letter dated 28.2.2006. Thus, for this period of delay in communicating that nothing against the petitioner in any manner during investigation has been found, can also not be attributed to the petitioner.

Taking into account over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that interest of justice shall be served in case petitioner is directed to be paid interest on the amount of gratuity with effect from the date Economic Offence Wing intimated to the State Government that nothing against the petitioner was found in the criminal investigation that is with effect from 2.6.2003 till the date of actual payment of the said amount i.e. 1.8.2006.

Accordingly, opposite parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the petitioner on the total amount of gratuity paid for the period starting from 2.6.2003 till 1.8.2006. The amount of aforesaid interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this judgment and order is produced before the authorities concerned.

So far as the claim of the petitioner regarding non-payment of other post retiral dues such as amount of group insurance, leave encashment etc. is concerned, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari is directed to make payment of the amount which is legally admissible to the petitioner within a further period of three months.

Subject to above observations/directions, the writ petition is hereby allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.