R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) In this case, an interim order was passed on 17.4.2003 which reads as below : "Heard Sri Vipin Saxena learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appeared for the respondent. The petitioner while working as Revenue Inspector in Nagar Palika, Aligarh retired on 31.3.1985 but he has not been paid his pension and gratuity, etc. since then. Thereafter the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1993. According to Annexure-C.A.-1 to the counter-affidavit, the Director of Local Bodies, U. P. Lucknow vide order dated 29.7.1994 ordered that the post retirement benefit shall be paid to the petitioner from 1.4.1985 to 30.4.1994 i.e., after a lapse of nine years. The petitioner is aggrieved that his due money along with interest has not been paid and he has not enjoyed his retirement benefits. List the writ petition tomorrow as unlisted matter."
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Dr. Uma Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Anr., 1999 (2) AWC 1486 (SC) : (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1006, wherein retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner after a delay of 3 and 1/2 months. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court finding, the State Government was responsible to prepare necessary papers to give retiral benefits awarded interest of rupees one lack.
(3.) It was observed in S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 27, that the Government had defaulted in making payments of the post retiral benefits despite the demands consistently made by the employee and the State Government was directed to pay rupees two lacs towards interest, compensation and litigation expenses.;