# Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 601
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-12
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 16300 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51289
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ms. Monika Arya, Addl. C.S.C., Mr. Harsh
Vardhan Gupta

A. Service Law - Retirement - Post-retiral
benefits - Interest - Entitlement - The
petitioner was retired without a decision
being
taken
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings
initiated
against
him
-
Permissibility - Claim for interest was
rejected on the ground of lack of provision
for it - Validity challenged - Held, there
was
culpable
delay
in
paying
the
petitioner's post-retiral benefits on the
respondent's part. If an employee is
suspended pending inquiry, with a short
time to go until his superannuation, it is
the bounden duty of the employer to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings well
ahead of the employee's retirement - No
employee should be allowed to retire, with
disciplinary proceedings pending against
him, unless these are commenced virtually
on the eve of his retirement, for very
compelling reasons, or the charges are so
serious and facts so complicated that the
process of inquiry would certainly extend
beyond the employee's superannuation -
High Court issued writ of mandamus to
pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the belated payment of group
insurance, gratuity and arrears of pension
by imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/-. (Para
13, 15 and 23)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
601
indicating that either petitioner has
challenged the said order before any higher
forum or that the said order has been
canceled or modified. Considering the fact
that petitioner was granted appointment on
the ground that he belonged to Scheduled
Tribe category and subsequently the said
certificate has been cancelled and hence it
cannot be said that order of cancellation of
petitioner's
appointment
is
illegal
or
arbitrary, as reservation in service is to be
granted strictly to the persons who belong
to that particular category and certainly any
attempt by any individual to fabricate any
document falsely showing himself to
belong to a particular caste or community,
deserves to be dealt strictly in accordance
with law.

12. This Court is of the considered
view that no prejudice in any manner by
order dated 23.08.2008 has been caused to
the petitioner inasmuch as full opportunity
of hearing was afforded by the competent
authority to the petitioner to defend his
caste certificate issued to him previously.
Considering that even challenge made to
the said order has not been successful and
order of cancellation is still in vogue, it
cannot be said that the impugned order of
cancellation of appointment suffers from
any infirmity.

13. The only contention of the
petitioner is that due opportunity of hearing
was not given, which has caused prejudice
to
him.
This
argument,
on
due
consideration, fails on the face of it. The
perusal of the order of cancellation of caste
certificate
dated
24.03.2008
clearly
indicates that full opportunity was given to
the petitioner to defend his case, in
compliance of which, Tehsildar held an
inquiry and subsequently cancelled his
caste certificate, which further became the
basis of passing of impugned order of
cancellation
of
appointment
dated
23.08.2008.

14. The petitioner has not
challenged the order dated 24.03.2008,
which stands as the basis and reason for
cancellation of his appointment vide order
dated 23.08.2008. The onus to prove that
prejudice has been caused falls upon the
petitioner who failed to do so. As neither
prejudice has been caused nor miscarriage
of justice has been proved, hence no
interference is warranted by this Court in
this regard.

15. The writ petition being devoid
of merits, is dismissed.

16. However, it is provided that in
case any order is passed by the competent
authority setting aside the order of
cancellation of caste certificate dated
24.03.2008, the petitioner shall have liberty
to bring the said order on record and prefer
appropriate application for review of the
instant order, if so advised.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 16300 of 2024

Pramod Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Dinesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ms. Monika Arya, Addl. C.S.C., Mr. Harsh
Vardhan Gupta

A. Service Law - Retirement - Post-retiral
benefits - Interest - Entitlement - The
petitioner was retired without a decision
being
taken
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings
initiated
against
him
-
Permissibility - Claim for interest was
rejected on the ground of lack of provision
for it - Validity challenged - Held, there
was
culpable
delay
in
paying
the
petitioner's post-retiral benefits on the
respondent's part. If an employee is
suspended pending inquiry, with a short
time to go until his superannuation, it is
the bounden duty of the employer to
conclude the disciplinary proceedings well
ahead of the employee's retirement - No
employee should be allowed to retire, with
disciplinary proceedings pending against
him, unless these are commenced virtually
on the eve of his retirement, for very
compelling reasons, or the charges are so
serious and facts so complicated that the
process of inquiry would certainly extend
beyond the employee's superannuation -
High Court issued writ of mandamus to
pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the belated payment of group
insurance, gratuity and arrears of pension
by imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/-. (Para
13, 15 and 23)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Kerala & ors. Vs M. Padmanabhan Nair;
(1985) 1 SCC 429

2. Smt. Nazma Khatoon Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2016:AHC:102266-DB

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against
an order passed by the Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, District
Bijnor dated July the 3rd, 2024, declining
to
pay
interest
on
the
belated
disbursement of post-retiral benefits to
the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was a Revenue
Moharir in the employ of the Nagar
Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor1. His
date
of
birth
is
01.06.1959.
On
15.02.1977, he was appointed a Naib
Moharir with the Nagar Palika. He was
appointed for a period of two months on a
temporary
basis
vide
order
dated
15.02.1977 passed by the Chairman of
the Nagar Palika, under Section 70 of the
Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 19162.
After the petitioner completed the period
of
two
months
with
effect
from
15.04.1977, his employment was not
extended. On 16th of April, 1977, upon
an application made by the petitioner, he
was appointed again to the post of a Naib
Moharir for two months on a temporary
basis. This time he was permitted to work
until the month of December, 1977.

3. Eschewing unnecessary detail,
all that deserves to be noticed is that the
petitioner was regularized in service by an
order of the Executive Officer of the Nagar
Palika dated 09.05.1982, with effect from
01.06.1982. The petitioner discharged his
duties regularly thereafter. On 09.01.2018,
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil
Dhampur, Bijnor, directed the Executive
Officer to conduct an inquiry against the
petitioner
into
a
complaint
dated
02.01.2018, addressed by one Sushil
Kumar Verma to the Chief Minister on the
jansunwai portal. The complaint was that
the
petitioner
was
appointed
before
attaining the age of 18 years. These
complaints are said to be repeated and were
disposed of. Still another inquiry was made
by the Naib Tehsildar, Seohara, Dhampur,
where an inquiry report dated 19.03.2018
was made, finding that the first ad hoc
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
603
appointment of the petitioner on the post of
Naib Moharir was made on 15.02.1977,
when he was aged 17 years 8 months and
14 days. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Dhampur,
on
28.03.2018,
made
a
recommendation that appropriate action be
taken by the competent authority on the
basis of the Naib Tehsildar's inquiry report
dated 19.03.2018. Relying upon the SubDivisional
Magistrate's
report,
the
Executive Officer passed an order of
suspension dated 23.08.2018.

4. Two months afterwards i.e. on
05.11.2018, a charge-sheet was served
upon the petitioner, carrying five charges.
The petitioner filed his reply to the chargesheet
on
01.12.2018,
together
with
documents in support of his defence. The
Junior Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Seohara was appointed the Inquiry Officer.
He served a notice upon the petitioner
dated 10.01.2019, requiring him to appear
on 18.01.2019 at 02:00 p.m. The petitioner
appeared in compliance with the notice.
The Inquiry Officer, according to the
petitioner, perhaps, submitted his report on
the
basis
of
proceedings
taken
on
18.01.2019. On 06.03.2019, the Executive
Officer intimated the petitioner that he
would
retire
on
31.05.2019,
upon
completing 60 years of age. The petitioner
says that on 25.04.2019, he submitted an
application to the Executive Officer to take
a decision in the disciplinary matter,
because the Inquiry Officer would have
submitted his report and the petitioner was
going to retire on 31.05.2019. No heed was
paid to the said letter and the disciplinary
matter was kept pending. The petitioner
retired on 31.05.2019, without a decision
being taken in the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against him. On 01.07.2019, the
petitioner submitted an application to
respondent No. 4 to release his pension and
the other post-retiral benefits. No action
was taken. A period of eleven months
passed
by
since
his
suspension
on
23.08.2018 and more than six months from
the date that he appeared before the Inquiry
Officer. Still, no final orders were made in
the disciplinary matter.

5. The petitioner was compelled to
move this Court through a writ petition,
being Writ - A No. 12274 of 2019, against
the continuing disciplinary proceedings and
complaining of the fact that the suspension
order was not brought to an end promptly.
He sought an expeditious decision in the
disciplinary proceeding. This Court, in the
writ petition aforesaid, on 20.08.2019,
passed the following order, disposing of the
petition :

In
view
of
the
said
admitted facts, suspension order
dated 23.8.2018 cannot be allowed
to continue in absence of any
conclusion of the departmental
enquiry
on
the
part
of
the
respondent.
The suspension order dated
23.8.2018 passed by respondent
no.5 is set aside to the above
extent.
As
the
petitioner
has
attained the age of superannuation,
he would be treated as reinstated
employee subject to the final
decision to be taken by the
disciplinary authority on the basis
of
the
enquiry
report
dated
22.2.2019. The release of retiral
dues of the petitioner would be
subject matter of the final decision
of the disciplinary authority which
shall be taken, preferably, within a
period of one month from the date
604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of submission of certified copy of
this order.
The
writ
petition
is
disposed of.

6. The order dated 20.08.2019 was
served in the Office of the Executive
Officer on 02.09.2019. Despite service of
that order, no final decision, on the basis of
the inquiry report, was taken or any of the
petitioner's post-retiral dues paid to him.
Instead, the petitioner was served with a
notice dated 15.11.2019, saying that he had
not given complete charge till that day, and
on 20.11.2019, the petitioner replied to the
letter of 15.11.2019, suitably.

7.

Since
the
disciplinary
proceedings
were
not
concluded
in
compliance with the orders of this Court
dated 20.08.2019, passed in Writ - A No.
12274
of
2019,
the
petitioner
was
compelled to move Contempt Application
(Civil) No. 8269 of 2019 before this Court.
This Court issued notice to the contemnors,
granting one more opportunity to them to
comply with the order within a month. The
following order was passed by this Court in
the contempt application aforesaid, on
12.12.2019 :

Heard the learned counsel
for the applicant.
It is alleged that the order
of the writ court has been violated.
From a perusal of the
record, a prima facie case for
contempt is made out.
Issue notice to opposite
party nos. 1 and 2.

The counter affidavit may
be filed within the aforesaid period
or else charges may be framed after
summoning the noticee.
However,
one
more
opportunity is granted to the
opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to
comply with the order within a
month. In case by the next date
fixed the directions of the Writ
Court are not complied with and an
affidavit to that effect is not filed,
the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 shall
remain present before this Court on
the date fixed.
The office may send a copy
of this order along with the notice.
List on the date mentioned
in the notice.

8. A compliance affidavit was filed
on behalf of the contemnor-opposite party,
the then Executive Officer, Arudendra
Prasad Pandey on 04.02.2020, saying that
the petitioner was reinstated and so far as
retiral dues were concerned, in case, the
petitioner
completes
the
requisite
formalities, the Executive Officer would
proceed to pass final orders within a
reasonable time to pay his post-retiral
benefits. It was also said that the admitted
dues had already been paid to the
petitioner. The petitioner acknowledges that
he was paid two cheques dated 23.10.2019,
one worth ₹2,09,664, and another, worth
₹45,601. Thereupon, this Court disposed of
the contempt application in terms of the
following orders passed on 04.02.2020 :

Shri
Manu
Saxena,
Advocate has entered appearance
on behalf of opposite party nos.1
and 2 and files affidavit of
compliance indicating therein that
the applicant has been reinstated in
the Department. So far as the retiral
and other benefits are concerned, in
case the applicant completes the
formalities as is required for,
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
605
definitely the Authority would
proceed to pass a final order
according
the
same
within
reasonable time. So far as the
admitted amount is concerned, the
same has already been extended in
favour of applicant.
In
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the
Court is of the considered opinion
that sufficient compliance has been
ensured in the matter. To extend
final
reprieve,
it
would
be
appropriate that the applicant shall
approach
the
Department
concerned within 10 days from
today. In case, the applicant turns
up within the said period and
submit
all
relevant
papers,
definitely the opposite party would
proceed to extend all the benefits
within two weeks thereafter.
With these observations,
the
contempt
application
is
disposed of.

9. On 10.02.2020, in compliance
with the orders made by this Court in the
contempt application, the petitioner went to
the Office of the Nagar Palika in order to
complete requisite formalities. He moved
an application to the Executive Officer to
release the arrears of his salary, dues on
account of earned leave encashment,
gratuity and group insurance, together with
interest. It is asserted that nothing was
done. On 11.08.2020, the petitioner made
an application on the Chief Minister's
jansunwai
portal,
bearing
number
40013420011998. This complaint was
disposed of vide letter dated 26.08.2020,
saying that the payment of earned leave
encashment
has
already
been
made.
Regarding the payment of pension and
gratuity, the papers were being processed,
but due to overload of work in the office, it
was delayed. About the arrears, it was said
that it was not possible due to a stay on all
payments imposed by the Government of
Uttar Pradesh during the lockdown in
consequence of the CoViD-19 pandemic.
There was a repeat of events, when the
petitioner
complained
again
on
the
jansunwai portal of the Chief Minister on
18.09.2020. The petitioner also made an
application to the Director, Local Bodies
through registered post, with a prayer to
comply with the orders passed in the
contempt application and a request to take
strict action against the Nagar Palika
authorities. The petitioner alleges that the
dues of his leave encashment approximate
to a sum of ₹4,17,440, but he has been paid
under that head on 11.02.2020 a sum of
₹2,54,265. The gratuity and insurance,
bonus for the period 2017-18 had not been
paid at all. He, therefore, moved Contempt
Application (Civil) No. 5076 of 2020
before this Court. This Court issued notice
to the opposite party. During the hearing of
this contempt application, an affidavit of
compliance was filed on 21.10.2021,
seeking further time. On 06.09.2022, partial
compliance was reported and it was said
that the balance would be paid very soon. It
was on 16.04.2024 that the respondents
said that the entire dues payable to the
petitioner have been made good. The
petitioner pressed for award of interest on
the belated payment, but the learned Judge
hearing the contempt matter did not take
cognizance, as there was no direction by
this Court on the writ side to pay interest.
The contempt notice was, accordingly,
discharged. The petitioner then made an
application to the Executive Officer and the
Chairman of the Nagar Palika to pay him
interest on the belated payment of arrears
of
salary,
bonus,
leave
encashment,
gratuity, group insurance and other retiral
606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefits, with all details. No heed was paid,
despite a reminder dated 10.06.2024.
Ultimately, by the order impugned dated
03.07.2024, the petitioner's claim for
interest was rejected, with a remark that
there was no provision for payment of
interest on post-retiral benefits to a retired
employee.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated
03.07.2024
passed
by
the
Executive
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara,
Bijnor, the instant writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution has been
instituted.

11. A short counter affidavit was
filed
on
24.10.2024,
to
which,
the
petitioner has filed a rejoinder. Apart from
that, in compliance with the orders dated
08.11.2024, three personal affidavits each
were
filed
by
the
Commissioner,
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad,
the
District Magistrate, Bijnor and the Deputy
Director, Local Fund Accounts Department,
U.P., Moradabad Region, Moradabad.

12. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Monika Arya, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents
Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and Mr. Harsh Vardhan
Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents Nos. 4 & 5.

13. Upon hearing learned Counsel
for parties and a perusal of the records, this
Court is of opinion that there was culpable
delay in paying the petitioner's post-retiral
benefits on the respondents' part. If an
employee is suspended pending inquiry,
with a short time to go until his
superannuation, it is the bounden duty of
the employer to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings well ahead of the employee's
retirement. In this case, when the petitioner
retired on 31.05.2019, his suspension from
service, ordered on 23.08.2018, was still
continuing. Obviously, the suspension
stood automatically dissolved, upon the
petitioner's retirement and severance of
employer-employee relationship, a position
reinforced by the directions of this Court in
Writ
-
A
No.
12274
of
2019.
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
the
respondents say that the petitioner was not
fully exonerated of the charges, a decision
was made to pay all his post-retiral dues.
This obviously means that the inquiry
report, which is one said to be completed
on 21.09.2019, but, surprisingly, never
placed before this Court, did not hold the
petitioner guilty of any such serious charge,
where, his entitlement to receive his postretiral benefits would be in jeopardy. The
decision, as aforesaid, according to the
respondents, was taken in compliance with
this Court's order dated 20.08.2019 passed
in the writ petition last mentioned, some
three
months
after
the
petitioner's
retirement. Now, if by August, 2019, it was
known to the respondents that they had to
pay the petitioner's post-retiral benefits,
there is no valid explanation except a
lackadaisical and nonchalant approach of
the respondents about their obligation to
pay these benefits, which led to delay in
complete disbursement of the petitioner's
dues. The last of the petitioner's dues,
according
to
the
Divisional
Commissioner,
were
paid
off
on
07.09.2022
and,
according
to
the
Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika, on
04.09.2022. Between 21.09.2019, when
the inquiry against the petitioner was
completed, and a decision taken to
release his post-retiral dues and the last
of
payment,
that
was
made
on
07.09.2022, there is no explanation worth
the name to justify the delay.
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
607
14. The stand of the Commissioner
of the Division as well as the Deputy
Director, Local Fund Accounts Department,
U.P., Moradabad Region, Moradabad has
been very insensitive. In paragraphs Nos. 7
to 12 of the Commissioner's affidavit, it is
averred :

7. That due to the absence
of any conclusive orders on the
suspension
proceedings,
the
petitioner subsequently filed Writ
Petition No. 12274/2019 before this
Hon'ble Court, wherein Hon'ble
Court, by order dated 20.8.2019,
directed that a final decision be
rendered within a month in the
matter. Consequently, the Nagar
Palika Parishad, Syohara, passed an
order on 21.9.2019, concluding the
departmental proceedings against
the
petitioner.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner was expected to fulfill
the requisite formalities for the
release of pensionary benefits vide
notice dated 10.10.2020.
8.
That
following
the
completion of requisite formalities,
the petitioner's pension file was
forwarded to the Deputy Director,
Local Fund Audit Department,
Moradabad, on 4.3.2020 and in
between the payment of earned
leave encashment was made to the
petitioner on 23.10.2019, and the
amount of Group Insurance was
subsequently disbursed to him on
03.08.2021.
9.
That
due
to
the
nationwide lockdown imposed on
25.3.2020 owing to the Covid-19
pandemic, no action could be
furthered, and, upon resumption of
work after lockdown, a letter was
sent to the Deputy Director, Local
Fund, on 16.7.2021. The Deputy
Director
raised
objections
on
31.7.2021, resulting in the return of
the file to the Nagar Palika. After
addressing these objections on
13.10.2021,
the
file
was
resubmitted to the Deputy Director,
who accorded his approval on
21.10.2021. Subsequently, the file
was
forwarded
to
the
Commissioner's Office through the
District Magistrate on 25.10.2021.
10.
That
the
duty
to
approve the pension file lies upon
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
who,
by
communication
dated
8.8.2022,
returned the file to the District
Magistrate, Bijnor, with specific
objections, which included the
following:
a. Absence of date of birth
evidence (either educational or
medical certificate) in the service
book.
b. Overwriting on dates
of initial appointment (15.2.1977)
and confirmation (15.2.1981) in
pen, which contradicted the dates
provided in the executive officer's
letter dated 25.10.2021 which
states dates of initial appointment
(16.04.1986) and confirmation
(15.03.1990).
c.
Lack
of
clear
recommendations for payment of
pension and gratuity.
d. Absence of a record
indicating reinstatement or other
action post suspension.
e. Non compliance with
the High Court order dated
20.8.2019 in Writ Petition No.
12274/2019, as there was no
record
in
the
service
book
608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
indicating
the
conclusion
of
proceedings
against
the
petitioner.

11. That following the
rectification of these objections, the
Nagar Palika Parishad resubmitted
the file on 02.04.2022. However,
the following objections remained
unaddressed:
a. Requirement to record
the
reinstatement
and
other
actions in the service book with
attestation by the competent
authority, which was absent. No
mention in the departmental
inquiry
order
regarding
exoneration
or
penalty,
as
required.
b. Absence of a conclusive
report on file to affirm whether
pension could be granted in view
of the contempt petition pending
as
Contempt
Petition
No.
5076/2020.

c. Lack of rationale for
the
recommendation
or
non
recommendation of pension and
gratuity.

12. That due to the above
reasons,
on
18.4.2022,
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration) returned the file to
the District Magistrate, Bijnor, for
rectification, which was thereafter
resolved and resubmitted to the
Commissioner's
Office
on
13.7.2022. The pension, family
pension, and gratuity were finally
sanctioned
on
4.8.2022,
and
payments
were
made
to
the
petitioner
on
7.9.2022.
Post
7.9.2022, no dues remain pending
against
Nagar
Palika
Parishad
towards petitioner.

15. The Commissioner has some
visitorial powers in the affairs of the Nagar
Palika, though not the Collector. Neither
the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika
nor the Commissioner bothered to think, as
the
stance
of
the
Commissioner
in
paragraph No. 7 of the personal affidavit
would show, that an employee, some
months away from his retirement, if
proceeded
with
in
the
disciplinary
jurisdiction, ought have been dealt with
swiftly and conclusions reached about his
guilt or otherwise - or the extent of it and
its consequences. There is nothing said
either by the Nagar Palika or the
Commissioner of the Division as to why
the inquiry, that was initiated against the
petitioner with a suspension order dated
23.08.2018,
was
not
concluded
and
disposed
of
before
the
petitioner's
retirement on 31.05.2019. It took the
Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika and
the Commissioner as well, the nudge of a
writ of this Court to galvanize them into
action, conclude the inquiry after the
petitioner's
retirement
and
based
on
findings, reach a decision on 21.09.2019,
when the inquiry report was submitted that
after
all,
the
petitioner's
post-retiral
benefits had to be paid in full. Why this
was not done before the petitioner's
retirement, as already said, is thought both
by
the
Executive
Officer
and
the
Commissioner of the Division something
so trivial as not to beg an answer. No
employee should be allowed to retire, with
disciplinary proceedings pending against
him, unless these are commenced virtually
on the eve of his retirement, for very
compelling reasons, or the charges are so
serious and facts so complicated that the
process of inquiry would certainly extend
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
609
beyond the employee's superannuation.
Here, neither was the case. The first
justification offered, therefore, that the
initial delay occurred due to the petitioner's
indictment in a disciplinary case, places the
blame squarely on the shoulders of the
Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika
Parishad and the Commissioner of the
Division.

16.

The
remarks
of
the
Commissioner, saying that after conclusion
of
the
departmental
proceedings
on
21.09.2019, the petitioner was expected,
through a notice dated 10.10.2020, to fulfill
the requisite formalities for release of
pensionary benefits, betrays the same
approach. The further remarks make the
picture worse. Perhaps, leave encashment,
that was said to have been paid on
23.10.2019, is the lone entitlement under
the head of retiral benefits, that was met
with
some
promptitude.
The
group
insurance, it is said by the Commissioner in
paragraph No. 8 of the personal affidavit,
was "subsequently disbursed to him on
03.08.2021". The Commissioner has not
realized that between 21.09.2019, when the
inquiry report was submitted and a decision
taken, that the petitioner would be paid his
post-retiral benefits, and 03.08.2021, when
the petitioner's group insurance was paid, a
period of two years has elapsed. Two years
is a long period of time in man's short life.
Neither the Executive Officer of the Nagar
Palika nor the Commissioner of the
Division spared a thought to it, because,
obviously, they were not suffering the
predicament. It was the petitioner.

17. In paragraph No. 10 of the
Commissioner's affidavit, and elsewhere,
there is a repeat reference that the file
relating to the post-retiral benefits was
routed to the Nagar Palika from the
Commissioner's office through the District
Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Bijnor,
in his personal affidavit, has attempted to
show that he never put in any objection in
the matter. We believe him for his word,
though we think that he too has managed to
coerce the Executive Officer of the Nagar
Palika into saying that there was a
typographical error in mentioning that
objections were put in by the District
Magistrate, when, what was meant, was the
Commissioner. The Commissioner has
acknowledged that each time the file
relating to the petitioner's retiral benefits
moved from the Nagar Palika, it was routed
through the District Magistrate's office. We
fail to see why that is so. If the District
Magistrate had no say in the matter of the
Nagar
Palika,
why
should
the
Commissioner, who is some statutory
authority in the Nagar Palika affairs, should
have routed all papers through the District
Magistrate, as if it were by the compelling
habit. One more office - one more station, it
is not hard to imagine, leads to added
delay; particularly, when the office of
conduit has the trappings of sovereign
authority. These seem small or unnecessary
detail, but, are unpredictable hurdles,
which, if circumvented, would accelerate
matters. There is no reason why the papers
in this case should have been routed each
time by the Commissioner and the
Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika
through the District Magistrate, Bijnor.

18. A perusal of paragraph No. 10
of the Commissioner's personal affidavit
shows that five objections were put in by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration)
entrusted
with
the
assignment. A look at the objections leaves
one to wonder - at least about three of these
- if they are matters which should have
been dealt with at least a year ahead of the
610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner's scheduled retirement. The last
two objections in paragraph No. 10 are less
of objections and more of obstructions.
Likewise, when rectified and resubmitted, a
fresh list of objections, numbering three,
were put in, two of which are absolutely
besides the point - the one about pendency
of contempt proceedings, requiring a
conclusive report on file to affirm whether
pension
could
be
granted
pending,
contempt
proceedings.
This,
for
an
objection, is nothing short of perversity.
The tenor of the objections in paragraphs
Nos. 10 and 11, as already remarked, show
not the desire to facilitate payment of postretiral benefits, but a mind that is utterly
nonchalant to the plight of a retiree.
Admittedly, the last of the dues, that were
paid, was on 07.09.2022. It had been
decided that the petitioner would be paid
his dues by the Nagar Palika way back on
21.09.2019, when the inquiry report was
submitted. By the time the last and the most
substantial of retiral dues were paid, it was
already 07.09.2022, to wit, a period of three
years. There is absolutely no justification
for all this delay. What was paid on
07.09.2022,
after
the
Commissioner's
approval, was pension and gratuity. The
group insurance was paid on 03.08.2021
and the leave encashment was paid on
23.10.2019. Except for dues on account of
leave encashment, all dues that have been
paid later, have been paid with a culpable
delay, inviting award of interest.

19. Long ago, in State of Kerala
and others v. M. Padmanabhan Nair3, it
was observed by their Lordships of the
Supreme Court :

3. The instant case is a
glaring instance of such culpable
delay in the settlement of pension
and gratuity claims due to the
respondent who retired on May 19,
1973. His pension and gratuity
were ultimately paid to him on
August 14, 1975 i.e. more than two
years and 3 months after his
retirement and hence after serving
lawyer's notice he filed a suit
mainly to recover interest by way
of liquidated damages for delayed
payment. The appellants put the
blame
on
the
respondent
for
delayed payment on the ground that
he had not produced the requisite
L.P.C. (last pay certificate) from the
Treasury Office under Rule 186 of
the Treasury Code. But on a-plain
reading of Rule 186, the High
Court held - and in our view
rightly - that a duty was cast on
the Treasury Officer to grant to
every retiring Government servant
the last pay certificate which in this
case had been delayed by the
concerned officer for which neither
any justification nor-explanation
had been given. The claim for
interest was, therefore, rightly,
decreed in respondent's favour.

4. Unfortunately such claim
for interest that was allowed in
respondent's favour by the District
Court and confirmed by the High
Court was at the rate of 6 per cent
per annum though interest at 12 per
cent had been claimed by the
respondent in his suit. However,
since the respondent acquiesced in
his claim being decreed at 6 per
cent by not preferring any crossobjections in the High Court it
would not be proper for us to
enhance the rate to 12 per cent per
annum which we were otherwise
inclined to grant.
12 All. Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
611
5. We are also of the view
that the State Government is being
rightly saddled with a liability for
the
culpable
neglect
in
the
discharge of his duty by the District
Treasury Officer who delayed the
issuance of the L.P.C. but since the
concerned officer had not been
impleaded as a party defendant to
the suit the Court is unable to hold
him liable for the decretal amount.
It will, however, be for the State
Government to consider whether
the erring official should or should
not be directed to compensate the
Government the loss sustained by it
by his culpable lapses. Such action
if taken would help generate in the
officials of the State Government a
sense
of
duty
towards
the
Government under whom they
serve
as
also
a
sense
of
accountability to members of the
public.

20. Furthermore, in the Bench
decision of this Court in Smt. Nazma
Khatoon v. State of U.P. and others4, it
has been held :

Even otherwise, we are of
the opinion that interest is a
necessary corollary to the retention
of money by another person. It is
neither compensatory nor penal in
nature and in that regard matter has
been adjudicated upon by the
Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Ranjana Kakar Vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in
2008(10)ADJ 63(DB).
Following the law so laid
down by the Division Bench of this
Court, we are of the opinion that
the appellant is entitled to get
interest at the rate of 8 percent on
the money of gratuity payment
whereof has been delayed by the
respondents. Interest so payable
shall be calculated from the date
the money was due by the date of
actual payment.

21. One is left to wonder that the
principles, laid down more than four
decades ago by the Supreme Court and
reiterated by their Lordships as also by this
Court on a number of occasions, have
failed
to
influence
the
respondents'
bureaucratic mind, which revels with
abiding faith in the wisdom of Government
Orders and other non-statutory instruments.
Sadly, to the practitioners of this approach,
the constitutional era has not dawned. It is
for violators such as these that penalty in
the form of interest, and, may be something
more, is necessary. In the present, the
former would suffice.

22. Before parting with the matter,
it must be remarked that the Divisional
Commissioner,
though
not
formally
impleaded as a party respondent to this writ
petition, has been sufficiently heard and
represented by the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, with due notice to him
and he has filed his personal affidavit in
answer to the petitioner's claim dated
19.11.2024.

23. In the result, this petition
succeeds and stands allowed with costs,
which we quantify at ₹10,000, payable by
the
Executive
Officer,
Nagar
Palika
Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor. The impugned
order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the
Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad,
Seohara, Bijnor is hereby quashed. A
mandamus is issued to the Director, Local
Bodies, Government of U.P., Lucknow, the
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Deputy Director, Local Fund Accounts
Department,
Moradabad
Region,
Moradabad and the Executive Officer,
Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor to
pay the petitioner, within four weeks of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, simple
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the
belated payment of group insurance,
gratuity and arrears of pension, reckoned
with effect from 21.09.2019, until payment
of these dues.

24. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Director, Local Bodies, Government of
U.P., Lucknow, the Deputy Director, Local
Fund Account Department, Moradabad
Region, Moradabad and the Executive
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara,
Bijnor through the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrates of Lucknow, Moradabad and
Bijnor, respectively.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 612
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 16406 of 2024

Satish Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sudeep Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Saurabh Tiwari

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950
-
Article
226,
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Regulations 101, 101(1), 103, 104,
105, 106 & 107- writ petition - seeking
mandamus commanding the DIOS to grant
approval to his appointment as clerk in the
institution
under
dying-in-Rules
-
Institution is run and management by the
Nagar Plika Parishad - Petitioner's father
died in harness who was a peon with the
institution
-
being
son
of
deceased
employee applied for appointment - being
eligible for the post of a clerk, considered
for
compassionate
appointment
in
accordance with Regulation 103-107 of
Chapter III of Regulation framed under Act,
of 1921 - manager of institution issued an
appointment letter appointing him as a
clerk
-
petitioner
joined
the
duty
-
institution
made
request
to
DIOS
for
approval
for
including
the
name
of
petitioner on Human Resource Portal for the
purpose of payment of Salaries - DIOS
referred the matter to Joint Director of
Education - JDE direct to DIOS to proceed
in accordance with Regulation 105 - court
finds that, there is a complete provision for
purpose made in regulation framed under
chapter III of the Act, but the authorities
have
not
acted
in
accordance
with
Regulation - held, (i) Petitioner has a right
to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment,
(ii)
Manager
of
the
institution has no right to issue the letter
of appointment, (iii) The District Level
Committee constituted under regulation
105 have to undertakes the necessary
exertions - Hence, a mandamus is issued
to the Manager of the institution to report
with all particulars within seven days to
the DIOS and DIOS will then proceed in
accordance with Regulation 104 and 105 to
place
the
petitioner's
case
for
consideration
before
the
Committee,
envisaged under Regulation 105 and the
committee
will
take
a
decision
for
appointment within a month in accordance
with regulations in force, and thereafter
DIOS shall proceed further to appoint the
petitioner within a month of receipt of
such
instruction
from
committee
-
direction issued to the authorities for
compliance punctiliously and without fail -
writ petition - Allowed. (Para - 19, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26)

Writ petition Allowed. (E-11)