- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This special appeal has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 24.5.2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25527 of 2006: Smt. Satyabhama Devi v. State of U.P. and others, by which writ petition was disposed of directing respondents-appellants to pay entire post retiral benefit alongwith compound interest @ 10% from the due date till the date of actual payment to the respondent-petitioner, preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's husband Late K.N. Tiwari, who was working as Junior Engineer in U.P. Power Corporation Limited at Allahabad, expired on 12.3.2001 during service period. After his death, it was duty of the respondent authorities to pay full pension, G.P.F. and time scale to his widow/respondent, but it appears that due to arbitrary action of the respondents these dues were not paid despite her repeated requests. Thereafter, she moved a representation dated 2.8.2005 before the authorities for redressal of her grievances regarding payment of post retiral and death benefits. The Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow by means of his office communications dated 20.1.2006 and 21.1.2006 directed the Executive Engineer, Power Distribution, to expedite the payment of pension, G.P.F. and time scale to the petitioner. When the order of Managing Director was not acted upon the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 25527 of 2006: Smt. Satyabhama Devi v. State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of 24.5.2006. Relevant portion of the order dated 24.5.2006 reads thus: In these circumstances, respondents are. directed to pay entire post retiral benefit to her, preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Needless to say that on total amount which is due, 10% compound interest shall be payable from the due date till the date of actual payment. As far as gratuity amount is concerned, on the said amount, statutory interest shall be payable. It is made clear that 10% compound interest which has been directed to be paid, qua the said amount it is further directed that it would be open to the respondents to recover the said amount from the employee concerned who are eventually held responsible for delay in ensuring payment of retiral dues.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 24.5.2006 impugned in the present special appeal on the ground that direction for payment of compound interest is incorrect as it has been passed without appreciating the conduct of the respondent regarding completion of certain formalities which had not been complied with by him. It is stated that for these reasons, the department is not at fault if payment of retiral cum death benefits could not be made to the heirs of the deceased employee; and that petitioner-respondent is not the only heir of the deceased employee there being other heirs also of deceased employee, therefore the direction by the writ Court for payment of compound interest @ 10% from the date it became due to the petitioner-respondent till the date of its actual payment is liable to be quashed.;