J.M. VEERABHADRAIAH SON OF MARULEAIDDAIAH. J.M. RETIRED Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560001, THE COMMISSIONER OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION SHESHADRI ROAD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of a certiorari to quash the order dated 07.08.3009 Annexure - G, passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of petitioner for payment of interest for the delayed period in settling and pension and also taking into consideration the period from initial entry into service for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on 20.08.1970 as lecturer in political science in the respondent No. 4 institution and retired from service on 31.05.3003 on attaining superannuation. After lapse of 29 months from the date of retirement the respondents have released the pensionary benefits. While calculating the pensionary benefits the respondents have excluded the period from 07.07.1977 to 02.12.1977 on the ground that during this parted petitioner worked in an unaided collage under the same respondent Further the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on retirement benefits on the ground that the delay is attributable to the petitioner and the 4th respondent management Hence this writ petition.

(3.) THIS Court in WP Ho. 31154/2009 in the case of Smt. Susheelamma Vs. Accountant General A and E, Pension Division, Karnataka and Another reported in 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 230 held as under: 3. Pension is not a bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in the Government servant. The right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Art 31(1) of the Constitution of India and the State, has no power to either withhold or cause delay in the payment. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Art. 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub -Article (5) of Art. 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying petitioner's right to receive pension and it is the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This is the law laid down by five Judges of the Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1409 . 4. In a similar circumstance, though not identical, a case where there was a delay of four years in payment of the pensionary benefits to an employee of the State, the Apex Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and Others, JT (2000) 5 SC 171 directed payment of interest at the rate of 1896 p.a. from the date of retirement till payment.