RAJINDER SINGH Vs. S S AHMED
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
S S Ahmed
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner served the Police Department in various capacities and retired as Deputy Superintendent of Police on June 30, 1981, after
putting up 28 years service. He was not paid general Provident fund
contributions which led him to file writ petition No. 536 of 1982 before
this court. Honble the Chief Justice of this Court, while deciding the
writ petition on Nov. 26, 1984 directed the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and other respondents in the case to finalise the provident fund case of
the petitioner within two months from that date. It seems that no action
was taken and the petitioner has now come up with a petition for
initiating contempt proceedings against the Accountant General and Dy.
Accountant General of the State.
(2.) OBJECTIONS have been filed showing various difficulties faced by the department in finalizing the case of the petitioner. During the
course of these proceedings, respondents admitted an amount of Rs.
29,744/ - due to the petitioner which fact was disputed by the petitioner. Any how, on the directions of this Court said amount was paid to the
petitioner. Petitioner has filed various statements showing the amount
due to him and the respondents have also filed certain statements
rebutting the plea of the petitioner However, this Court is not required
to go into these statements, which is a matter of calculation. Petitioner
besides claiming an amount of Rs 3600/ - at his G. P. Fund due, has
claimed market interest @ 18% per annum and compensation of Rs. 64000/ -
for the agony he has undergone due to delayed payment.
(3.) IT cannot be denied that an official has a right to have his general provident fund contributions soon after his retirement because it
is the amount which has been contributed by him from his salary, by way
of compulsory deposit to which he is entitled in all respects. Their
Lords -ships of the Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in AIR
1985 SC 356 have held that the pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their
retirement but have become, under the decisions of the Court, valuable
rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement
and disbursement thereof must be vested with penalty of payment of
interest at the current market rate till actual payment. It has further
been held in this authority that penal interest on the dues at the
current market rate, which according to their lordships should be 12% P.
A., should commence at the expiry of two month from the date of
retirement. This principle laid down by their lordships of the Supreme
Court applies to the facts of the present case. Petitioner retired on
June 30, 1981 but he was not paid his G. P. Fund dues which forced him to
file a writ petition but despite the direction issued by this Court, such
dues were not paid for along time when the petitioner was again forced to
come before this Court by way of the present petition and after a
direction was issued by this Court some amount, which according to the
petitioner was not correct amount, was paid. Even if the amount admitted
by the Accountant General i.e. Rs. 29,744/ - is taken into consideration
to be correct amount the State Government is liable to pay interest on
this amount @ 12% per annum with effect from 1 -9 -1981, till its
realization. The direction is made accordingly.
I think, the petitioner is also entitled to compensation for the agony he has undergone in getting his due recovered after such a long
drawn litigation but I fear such compensation cannot be granted in these
proceedings. I at the same time feel no purpose will be served for
punishing the respondents in these proceedings and as such the present
proceedings against them are dropped and the rule issued is discharged.
The petitioner is also awarded costs which are assessed as Rs. 3000/ -.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.