K.P. Singh, G.K. Mathur, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to make payment of the petitioner's Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance as early as possible with interest at the rate of 12% on the whole amount due since the date they ought to have been paid and not paid as yet. From a perusal of the materials attached with the writ petition it appears that there is a dispute that the petitioner has not succeeded in producing 'No Dues Certificate' before tire authority concerned with the result that the petitioner has not been able to get his Pension, Provident Fund etc.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we think that the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed and has not been paid the money due to him within a reasonable time from the date of his retirement. In this connection we think it proper to extract the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others v. M. Padnanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429. "Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penally of payment of interest at the currents market rate till actual payment. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non - production of the L.P.C. (last pay certificate) and N.L.C. (no liability certificate) from the concerned Departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Government Department. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appropriate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at learnt a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necessary for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be overemphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date a retirement." In the present case the petitioner retired on 30th June, 1985 as the Senior most Lecturer of the Physics Department, but he has not been paid his dues as yet.
(3.) It is regrettable that the opposite parties are not paying proper heed to the demand and request of the petitioner. Even in this Court sufficient time has been granted to the Standing Counsel for filling counter - affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 3, but no counter - affidavit has been filed as yet. We do not see any justification for this enormous delay in making the payment to the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice we grant three weeks further time to the Standing Counsel to see that the relevant payment is made to the petitioner or cause is shown to this Court for the enormous delay in making necessary payment to the petitioner.;