BIRBAL DUTT Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled in the Army in EME Branch, wherefrom he was discharged on 29-09-1955. He made relentless efforts for the release of his pension for a space of 38 years, but without any positive response. This necessitated the petitioner to approach the Court claiming the release of his pension by filing OWP No. 1379/1993. It has never been the stand of the respondents in the aforesaid writ petition that the petitioner is neither eligible for grant of pension nor it was found credible that the petitioner has received gratuity in lieu of pension. While deciding the writ petition, the Court held as under.

(2.) The pension claim of the petitioner was, however, processed by the Sanctioning Authority and Pension Payment order was issued by CDA (P), Allahabad on 16th June, 1995 and first payment of pension with arrears was released to the petitioner by the Pension Disbursing Authority on 25th July, 1995. According to the petitioner, pensionery benefits have been with held by the respondents illegally, arbitrarily and without any justification. The pension and other retrial benefits were required to be paid to the petitioner in time. His further submission is that in the absence of any justifiable explanation about the delay on the part of the employer in releasing the retrial and other benefits, he must be compensated with interest on the amount to be paid to him. The petitioner, thus claims interest @ 18% per annum on the wrongful withholding of the amount of pension from the date the petitioner became entitled to the grant of payment of pension on the date of his retirement.

(3.) The stand taken by the respondents in their demurrer is that after the discharge of the petitioner, he must have received either pension or service gratuity. It is admitted by the respondents that after his discharge from service as to whether the petitioner was granted pension or gratuity, the same could not be ascertained in the absence of service documents, which were destroyed by burning, being 25 years old non-pensionable case. It was further submitted that the petitioner's claim for interested was also considered in writ petition No. 1379/1993, but no interest was granted to the petitioner. In such circumstances, his claim for interest can not be adjudicated upon in this writ petition.