- (1.) HUSBAND of the petitioner, Sri B. M. Dhose was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the service of the State Government. He was compulsorily retired by the Government of U. P. by order dated 7-11-1975. Against the order of compulsory retirement, he filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow which was dismissed on 18-1-1994. Thereafter, he died on 1-5-1995.
(2.) ALTER his retirement the petitioner husband raised his claim for pension and other post retirement benefits. But no action was taken m that regard by the Government. It was only on 9-6-1982 that the Government passed an order directing withholding of the gratuity and for payment of 90% pension. In accordance with the above order, 90% pension was paid to the petitioner's husband. But it was only on 21-7-1995 that the petitioner, who is widow of Sri B. M. Dhose, was paid the remaining pension and the gratuity. As the pension and gratuity were paid to the petitioner without any interest, she made representation for payment of interest. In Para 23 of the petition it has been stated that even the D I. G. Police (Administration) recommended to the Government for payment of interest to the petitioner, but it did not yield lany result. Not having succeeded in getting the interest from the Government, the petitioner has filed this petitioner for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay her interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 8-11-1975 to 21-7-1995, compoundable every year. On 1-12-1995 learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks' time to file counter-affidavit. But no counter-affidavit was filed. On 11-4-1996 this Court granted three weeks and no more time to file counter-affidavit. But in spite of the stop order no counter-affidavit has been filed with the result that the allegations mad in the writ petition are liable to be accepted as correct. The Government does not pay pension and other post retirement benefits as a bounty to its employees after their retirement. It is the right of the Government servant to get those dues unless withheld in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law. The Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, the relevant extract of which is reproduced below, has laid down that right to pension and gratuity are the valuable rights of the employees and it there is delay making those payments the Government servant is entitled to interest. The relevant extract is as under : "pension and gratuity are not longer any bountry to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decision of this court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest and the current market rate till actual payment. " Following the above decision the Supreme Court in R. Kapoor v. Director of Inspector (Painting and Publication, Income tax, 1995 UPLBEC 98, awarded 18% interest for delayed payment of gratuity.
(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner's husband retired in 1975 but he was not paid any retiral benefits after his retirement. Although neither any criminal and/or departmental proceeding w4s pending at the time of his retirement nor any such proceeding was initiated thereafter but even than 90% pension was paid to him pursuant to an order dated 9-6-1982, i. e. , after about seven years of his retirement. The remaining pension and gratuity was paid to the petitioner in 1995 after her husband's death. There is, thus, undue delay and negligence on the part of the Government in making payment of post retirement benefits to the petitioner's husband and to the petitioner after his death. Not only that there is no plausible explanation for delayed payment in the instant case, but the respondents even failed to show cause before this court in spite of the order parsed to the effect more than once. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed with cost which in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, is assessed at Rs. 5000 (Rupees Five thousand), which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. The respondents will also pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 6% per annum over the amount of 90% pension, which was paid to the petitioner's husband pursuant to the order dated 8-6-1992, for the period from the date to his retirement till the 90% pension was paid to him. For the remaining amount which was paid to the petitioner in 1995, the respondents will pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the retirement of petitioner's husband till the date of payment to the petitioner. The aforesaid interest will be paid to the petitioner within the period of three months specified above. Petition allowed. .;