- (1.) This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 13th May, 2014 in W.P. 9057 (W) of 2014 at the instance of the appellant/writ petitioner. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected by holding inter alia that the writ petitioner was lacking bona fide in not approaching the Writ Court promptly. It was also held therein that there was no statutory provision regarding grant of interest on delayed payment of gratuity to the retired teaching and/or non -teaching staff of the primary school and as such. Writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued commanding the State respondent to pay interest on delayed payment of gratuity. These are the two reasons for which the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for interest on delayed payment of gratuity in the facts of the instant case.
(2.) The writ petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher of a primary school retired from service on superannuation with effect from 30th June, 2010. Though he retired from service on 30th June, 2010 but the pension payment order was not issued immediately. It was issued on 6th July, 2011. The retiral benefits as per the said pension payment order was paid to him on 10th September, 2013. It is only then, the writ petitioner came to know that no interest was paid on delayed payment of gratuity. As such, he filed the writ petition on 18th March, 2014. Thus, we find that he approached the writ Court seeking the aforesaid relief within six months from the date of payment of his retiral dues as per the pension payment order issued on 6th July, 2011. Pension is payable to the pensioner from the month following the date of his retirement. The reason as to why such delay was caused in issuance of the pension payment order remains unexplained from the side of the said authority.
(3.) As a matter of fact, the State respondent was benefited due to delay in payment of such retiral dues of the petitioner. The State respondent enjoyed the money which was payable to the writ petitioner until such payment was made to him. It has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v/s. Union of India, reported in : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 130 that pension is not bounty and/or charity. It was held therein that right to pension is, as good as a right to the property of the pensioner. As such, if somebody is deprived of enjoying his property, the loss which he suffered due to deprivation of his right of enjoyment, should be compensated by the employer who is responsible for such delay in payment of retiral dues to the pensioner. Thus, the State respondent cannot deny payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity to the writ petitioner.;