- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner retired on 31. 2. 1997 as Senior Supply Inspector in the department of Food and Civil Supplies of the State Government. When he was not paid his retiral dues, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31936 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court on 7. 10. 1998 directing the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in this regard. When the representation of the petitioner was not decided, he filed a contempt petition. It is stated that in the year 1999 certain dues were paid to the petitioner but his entire retiral dues had not been paid to him. However, in the year 2005 his entire retiral dues including gratuity and arrears have been paid. Now by means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for payment of 18% interest per annum on the delayed payment of retiral dues.
(2.) I have heard Sri A. S. Diwekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The respondents do not dispute the fact that there was delay in payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is admitted that nearly six months prior to the retirement of the petitioner, which was on 31. 12. 1997, the petitioner had submitted his pension paper son 15. 7. 1997. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is not stated that there was any fault or shortcoming on the part of the petitioner because of which there was delay in the payment of retiral dues except that in the pension papers submitted by the petitioner on 15. 7. 1997 he had mentioned the old pay scale whereas the pay scale had been revised with effect from 1. 1. 1996. With regard to this, it is submitted by Sri Diwekar that the pay scale was revised with effect from 1. 1. 1996 after the petitioner had submitted the pension papers and on this count the petitioner cannot be blamed for giving any incorrect information. From the record it is clear that the petitioner had approached this Court time and again for payment of his retiral dues. Nothing had happened and no payment was made to the petitioner prior to his filing of the first writ petition in October 1998 being writ petition No. 31936 of 1998. It was only there after that the first payment was made to him in the year 1999 and that too, not the entire retiral dues. He was compelled to file a contempt petition. The last payment of his retiral dues has admittedly been made in the year 2005. It is unfortunate that the State Government makes such delay in making the payment of retiral dues of its employees to which the employees are entitled to immediately on retirement. It is not paid as a grace or bounty to the employee. It is a right of an employee which he earns by having worked with the institution during the prime years of his life. In the present case, the petitioner had admittedly completed all the formalities nearly six months before his retirement, as is required under the Rules. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner. In the aforesaid facts, in my view, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of interest for delayed payment of his retiral dues.
(3.) A Government Order dated 6. 12. 1994 has been filed alongwith the writ petition, in which it is categorically provided that in case if the retired employee is paid his retiral dues after three months of his retirement, he would be entitled for payment of interest at the rat of interest paid on the Provident Fund, which at the time of issuance of Government Order was 12% per annum. It has been stated that the present rate of interest on Provident Fund is 8% per annum. In such view of the matter, in terms of said Government Order, the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of interest of 8% per annum for delayed payment, i. e. to say, the payment which was made to him in 1999, would be entitled for interest from 1. 1. 1998 till the of such payment, and in case of payment made after 1999 and till 2005, the interest would be calculated at such rat from 1. 1. 1996 till the date of actual payment. The respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the interest is calculated within a period of three months from today and the same is paid to the petitioner within six weeks thereafter. The matter is more than a decade old. Hence in case if the interest is not paid within the aforesaid period, the rate of interest then payable would be 12% instead of 8%. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.;