- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has been instituted by the petitioner who is the son of deceased employee namely, Shravan Das Kapoor. The deceased employee who was serving as Naib Tahsildar died in harness on 19-6- 1975. The matter of payment of death-cum-retiral gratuity and arrears of salary dues is still mired and has not been settled ostensibly due to apathy and inaction on the part of the authorities concerned. The circumstances in this petition should be cited as to when the authorities choose to be unsympathetic they become insensate and unsympathetic to the point of cruelty. The authorities in the instant case do not seem to have been aroused out of their torpor despite lapse of 28 years. It is a matter of concern and the Court does not seem inclined to show any leniency towards the authorities to be found culpable of dereliction of duties statutorily assigned to them.
(2.) IN the instant petition, Shravan Kumar Kapoor, the deceased employee breathed his last on 19-6- 1975. It transpires from the record that the District Magistrate Bulandshahar sought succession certificate by means of letters dated 29-10-76 and 20-12-1977 and as a consequence, the petitioner furnished succession certificate dated 14-3-1980. It would further transpire that by means of order dated 29-10-1976, the petitioner was intimated that a sum of Rs. 14,859 towards arrears of salary and a further sum of Rs. 8,920 towards death cum retiral gratuity were payable. It would appear from the record that despite this order, the authorities prevaricated on payment of the aforestated amount on one pretext or the other and tired of dilly-dallying of the authorities, the petitioner ultimately knocked the door of this Court by means of the present petition instituted in the year 1988. This did not sound the end of the woes of the petitioner. On 5-8-1988, this Court granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit came to be filed within the time prescribed by the Court. Thereafter, the petition subsided in oblivion and it saw the light of the day on 31-10-1996 on which date, the Court passed interim mandamus enjoining respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month or to show cause from the date of production of certified copy of the order. This per-emptory order was neither observed in compliance not it elicited any counter affidavit under condition of the order. The matter is still mired in inaction of the authorities with no obviation to the sufferings of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the record for reasons resulting in non- payment of death-cum-retiral dues. From the record, there appears to be no valid reason except culpable inaction and dilly-dallying of the authorities. The learned standing counsel has not been able to rationalize the inaction of the authorities in not making payment of dues held payable by means of the order dated 29-10-1976 unto this date. In State of Kerala and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, the apex Court has not viewed with equanimity the delay in the settlement of pension and gratuity claims. In the said case, the employee retired on May 19, 1973 and the gratuity and pension were paid to him on August 14, 1975. The apex Court took serious view of the delay and observed that "it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement". In the ultimate analysis it was observed by the apex Court as under: "we are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty of the District Treasury Office who delayed the issuance of the L. P. C. but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit, the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public. " The instant case is not a case in which District Magistrate who is the competent authority has not been impleaded. The delay of more than 28 years in the instant case is indeed culpable and as stated supra, learned standing counsel has not been able to rationalize the inaction of the authority concerned. Besides, there seems to be obdurate defiance of the per-emptory order of the Court by the authorities inasmuch as the authorities have neither made payment in terms of their own order dated 29-10-1976 nor showed cause by filing counter-affidavit despite efflux of more than seven years since the date of issuance of interim mandamus. From the facts on record, it is obvious that there is culpable neglect in the discharge of duty by the authority concerned and the authorities should be saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of duty. Since in the instant case, there is unconscionable delay of more than 28 years, I think it a fit case in which the State Government should be saddled with a liability in the form of interest which I quantify at the rate of 12% attended with further direction that the penal interest so accruing on the amount found payable to the petitioner may be recovered from the personal sources of the authorities/officials concerned besides taking departmental action for culpable lapses in the matter. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed and it is directed that the amount found payable with interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 29-10-76 may be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. As stated supra, the amount of interest may if deemed proper, be recovered from the personal sources of the authorities found responsible for the inaction upto date besides taking department action for the culpable lapses in the matter. Petition allowed. .;