# Mohd. Wali Jan v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 139
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-01-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72991 of 2010
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-wali-jan-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-42467
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-claim
of interest on belated release of retiral
benefits-the
department
asked
the
petitioner to deposit certain amount of
loss caused by petitioner-offer made by
petitioner to recover said amount from
his
retirement-benefits-even
then
payment not made within time-held-the
dereliction of duty in part of respondent
in not releasing the amount-direction
issued to pay interest @6 % per annum
within two month.

Held: Para-6

Admittedly,
retirement
benefits
was
required to be paid and the same was
not released upon the retirement of the
petitioner. The respondents were aware
that the petitioner would retire on a
particular date and was required to
process the retirement dues on or before
the date of retirement to enable the
petitioner to get the post retirement
dues. This court also finds that the
petitioner had made a request that the
loss suffered by the department may also
be adjusted and the balance amount may
be released thereafter. Even though a
specific request was made the same
remained un-addressed and no effort
was made by the department to release
the balance amount and the same was
released
only
when
the
contempt
proceedings were drawn against the
respondents.
Case Law discussed:
[(2008) 1 UPLBEC 301]

## Text

1 All] Mohd. Wali Jan V. State of U.P. and another
139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72991 of 2010

Mohd. Wali Jan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N. K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C. S. C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-claim
of interest on belated release of retiral
benefits-the
department
asked
the
petitioner to deposit certain amount of
loss caused by petitioner-offer made by
petitioner to recover said amount from
his
retirement-benefits-even
then
payment not made within time-held-the
dereliction of duty in part of respondent
in not releasing the amount-direction
issued to pay interest @6 % per annum
within two month.

Held: Para-6

Admittedly,
retirement
benefits
was
required to be paid and the same was
not released upon the retirement of the
petitioner. The respondents were aware
that the petitioner would retire on a
particular date and was required to
process the retirement dues on or before
the date of retirement to enable the
petitioner to get the post retirement
dues. This court also finds that the
petitioner had made a request that the
loss suffered by the department may also
be adjusted and the balance amount may
be released thereafter. Even though a
specific request was made the same
remained un-addressed and no effort
was made by the department to release
the balance amount and the same was
released
only
when
the
contempt
proceedings were drawn against the
respondents.
Case Law discussed:
[(2008) 1 UPLBEC 301]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the
present writ petition for payment of
interest at the rate of 18% per annum on
belated release of the retirement benefits.

3. The petitioner contended that he
retired as a Marketing Inspector on 30th
June 2004 and his post retirement benefits
were
not
released.
The
petitioner
accordingly filed Writ Petition No.54996
of 2008 which was disposed of by order
dated 3rd November 2008 directing the
respondents to decide the petitioner's
representation.

4. It transpires that the department
did not release the post retirement dues on
the ground that the petitioner had caused a
loss of Rs.5,10,604/- and that such
amount was liable to be recovered from
the petitioner. Even though the petitioner
disputed this amount, the petitioner, in
order to avoid any controversy, requested
the department to recover the amount of
the alleged loss from the post retirement
dues and release the balance amount. In
spite of this specific request being made,
the respondent did not release the amount
and when the petitioner filed contempt
proceedings, the respondents released an
amount of Rs.9593 by cheque dated 10th
September 2009, Rs.4,93,723/- by cheque
dated 10th September 2009 and another
sum of Rs.17,868/- by cheque dated 10th
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
September 2009. The petitioner thereafter
filed the present writ petition praying that
on account of belated payments being
made, the petitioner is entitled for interest
at the rate of 18% per annum.

5. In S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana
and another, [(2008) 1, UPLBEC 301],
the said employees retired from service
and filed writ petition claiming interest
for 4 years on the amount on retirement
benefits. The said writ petition was
dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, against which Special Leave
Petition was filed, the Supreme Court
allowed the Special Leave Petition setting
aside the judgment of the High Court
holding that the appellant was entitled to
the retirement benefits in accordance with
law and was also entitled for interest on
such amount. The aforesaid decision is
squarely applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

6. Admittedly, retirement benefits
was required to be paid and the same was
not released upon the retirement of the
petitioner. The respondents were aware
that the petitioner would retire on a
particular date and was required to
process the retirement dues on or before
the date of retirement to enable the
petitioner to get the post retirement dues.
This court also finds that the petitioner
had made a request that the loss suffered
by the department may also be adjusted
and the balance amount may be released
thereafter. Even though a specific request
was made the same remained unaddressed and no effort was made by the
department to release the balance amount
and the same was released only when the
contempt proceedings were drawn against
the respondents.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, the
Court finds that there has been a
dereliction of duty on the part of the
respondents in not releasing the amount
within a reasonable period.

8. In view of above, the writ petition
is allowed and a writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the respondents to
pay interest on belated payments at the
rate of 6% per annum within two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.
---------