Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Both the petitioners retired from the service of the U. P. Power Corporation on 31.7.2001 after having served the Corporation for over three decades. The petitioners claim that they were entitled for payment of gratuity and G.P.F. immediately after their retirement as they had completed all the formalities with regard to the same but they were paid the said amount towards their retiral benefits only on 19.12.2002 and 11.12.2002 respectively which is nearly after 16 months of their retirement.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 Raj Nath Singh had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6107 of 2003 and the petitioner No. 2 Sohan Singh had filed Writ Petition No. 12483 of 2003 which were disposed with a direction that the matter relating to payment of interest for the delayed payment of their retiral benefits shall be considered by the competent authority on the representations being filed by the petitioners with regard to their grievances. Respondent No. 4 Maha Prabandhak, Varanasi Kshetra, U. P. Power Corporation Ltd., Varanasi, respondent No. 4, has by its order dated 26.6.2003 rejected the representations of the petitioner merely on technical ground that as per the Circular of the Department the payment has to be made immediately on the approval having been granted by the Accounts Officer and the Secretary of the Trust.
(3.) Admittedly both the aforesaid authorities are employees of" the respondent-Power Corporation and the delay in the sanction of payment of the amount of gratuity and G.P.F. by the said authorities could not be attributed to the petitioners. By the impugned order the respondents have not even indicated that there was any fault or delay on the part of the petitioners in completing the formalities for payment, of the amount of gratuity and G.P.F. In case if there was delay on the part of the Accounts Officer or the Secretary of the Trust, who both are the employees of the respondent-Power Corporation, in sanctioning the payment to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be said to be at fault and they would be entitled to be compensated for the delayed payment of their retiral benefits. As such the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 26,6.2003 are totally unsatisfactory, In the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the respondents are at fault in not making payment of the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a reasonable period of their retirement. Thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 4, Maha Prabandhak, Varanasi, Kshetra, U. P. Power Corporation Ltd., Varanasi is liable to be set aside.;