SUSHEELAMMA Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL A E PENSION DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband attained the age of superannuation and retired on 30-4-1997, as a District Registration Officer in the department of Registration and Stamps, having served the State for 33 years. The petitioner's husband was entitled to retirement benefits, including Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, immediately on retirement. It is stated that petitioner's husband died on 5-4-1998 without receiving the retirement pension. The petitioner, widow of the State servant, having made all efforts to secure pensionary benefits, received Rs. 2,04,435/- on 4-6-2009, after 12 years and 2 months of retirement. Hence, this petition filed on 23-10- 2009 for direction to the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the delayed payment of Rs. 2,04,435/- towards Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.

(2.) The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents, inter alia not disputing the factum of retirement of the State servant, but advancing a plea that several letters were addressed to the District Registrar Offices at Bhadravathi, Shimoga and Basavanagudi, calling for certain particulars of the retired official. On securing the same, it is said the payment was released to the petitioner on 26-2-2009. The delay in securing the No Objection Certificate, based on audit and inspection of the accounts of the District Registrar Office, where the official had served the State, was the cause for the undue delay in payment of the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity amount.

(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(I)(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(l)(f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution. This is the law laid down by five Judges of the Apex Court in Deokihandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1971 SC 1409.