- (1.) HEARD Sri D.C. Mukerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The controversy relates to payment of interest over the delayed payment of gratuity and commutation of pension by the respondents.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Overseer on 30.8.1963 in the irrigation department and later on he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 6.3.1998. While working in Saryu Canal Division in district Bahraich, he retired from service on 30.6.1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of retirement of the petitioner, neither any departmental proceeding was pending nor any other enquiry was going on, which could have created hurdle in payment of post retiral dues. In spite of the fact that the petitioner retired in June 1998, the gratuity and commuted pension were paid in September 2000. Accordingly, the petitioner claims payment of interest from the period June 1998 to September 2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Apex Court's judg­ments reported in 1999 (2) UPLBEC 1006, Dr. Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P. and another and AIR 2000 SC 3513 (1), S. Saleema Bi v. S. Pyari Begum and another. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner had completed necessary formalities in the month of Decem­ber 1999. Accordingly, the dues were paid in the month of August 2000. Learned Standing Counsel has invited attention of the Court towards Annexure SCA-1 filed with the Supplementary Counter Affidavit to point out that certain documents were required for the purpose, which were deposited by the petitioner in the month of December 1999. Accordingly, the submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that the petitioner is not entitled for interest on account of his own fault.
(3.) SRI D.C. Mukerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards letter dated 31.3.1999 sent by Executive Engineer indicat­ing therein that neither any enquiry is pending against the petitioner nor he is liable to pay any dues to the department. Executive Engineer also informed that "No Objection Certificate" shall be sent separately. Learned counsel for the peti­tioner further invited attention of this Court towards the letter dated 26.2.2000 sent by the Executive Engineer which shows zero liability on the part of the petitioner. While claiming interest over the delayed payment, it has been submit­ted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at no stretch of time the respon­dents have sent letter to the petitioner raising demand of certain, documents or for the completion of some formality.;