Kamal Narain Singh, Visheshwar Nath Khare, JJ. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks relief for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents which include the State of Uttar Pradesh the Director of Agriculture and the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh to pay full pension and gratuity to him. The petitioner was in the service of the State Government in the Agriculture Department as Soil Conservation Officer. On 15 -12 -1975 he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. On 22 -3 -1975 the Director of Agriculture submitted papers to the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 3, for payment of pension to the petitioner. On 10 -12 -1975 the State Government issued certificate that the petitioner has rendered satisfactory service. On 2 -1 -1976 the Deputy Secretary of the State Government issued a certificate that there were no dues outstanding against the petitioner. The petitioner made several applications to the State Government as well as to the Accountant General for the payment of pension and gratuity which were not heeded at all. On 28 -12 -1975 the Joint Director of Agriculture informed the petitioner by a letter that necessary steps were being taken for the payment of pension and gratuity. It appears that the petitioner approached the Minister for Agriculture also in this respect but without any success. On 5 -1 -1977 the petitioner received another letter from the Deputy Director of Agriculture saying that the question of payment of pension and gratuity was being considered. The petitioner served a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code on the State Government. The Director of Agriculture Uttar Pradesh informed the petitioner by a D.O. letter that payment of gratuity and pension will be made to the petitioner positively by 15 -4 -1980. The petitioner kept on waiting for that fateful day, but nothing of the kind was done. Ultimately he approached this Court by means of this petition.
(2.) THE petitioner has asserted that he being an officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh was entitled to pension and gratuity. The respondents have wrongfully withheld the same without there being any justification. The petitioner has given details in the writ petition entitling him to pension and gratuity. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents inspite of service of notice on them. In the circumstances the averments contained in the writ petition remain uncontroverted. There remains no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to pension and gratuity, yet it has not been paid to him. No reason whatsoever has been disclosed by the respondents for withholding the pension and gratuity. Under Rule 3.7 read with rule 3.3 of the U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules the petitioner being an officer of the State Government is entitled to pension in accordance with Articles 474 and 475 -A of the Civil Service Regulations, He is further entitled to gratuity under rule 3.4 of the U.P. Liberalised Pension Rules. The amount of pension which is payable on retirement is regulated by Article 474 of the Civil Service Regulations. The competent authority has issued a requisite certificate to the petitioner having rendered satisfactory service. The departmental authority has also issued no dues certificate. There is no good reason for the respondents to withhold the petitioner's pension and gratuity.
(3.) PENSION or gratuity is no more a bounty or privilege. It is the property of the Government servant to which he is entitled under the statutory rules. It is his right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. It is governed by rules as was held in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India : AIR. 1983 SC. 130.;