# Sant Lal v. The Chief Audit Officer & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 775
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-18
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sant-lal-v-the-chief-audit-officer-ors-43937
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.

The dispute relates to non payment of retiral dues. The respondents Have stated that all the
payments stated in para 11 of Supplementary Affidavits have been paid except 10 per cent G.P.F. But the
court do not find any Justification for non-payment of 10 per cent G.P.F. particularly when petitioner Has
retired on 31.10.1994. Withholding of amount of G.P.F. for the last 21 and More years is patently illegal and
for this reason respondents are liable to Compensate petitioner by paying appropriate interest. Apparently,
delay in Payment of 10 per cent of G.P.F. to the petitioner is without any authority of law.

Later on the court allow this writ petition directing respondents to ensure payment of 10 per cent G.P.F.
amount to petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with
12 per cent compound Interest which shall be computed after six months from the date of retirement of
Petitioner till actual payment.Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost, which we
Quantify to Rs. 50,000/-.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks Vs. Barnard and others 1964 AC
1129,the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta JT 1993 (6) SC 307,Ghaziabad
Development Authorities Vs. Balbir Singh JT 2004 (5)SC 17, Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1996) 6 SCC 530,Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558,Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Skipper Construction And Another AIR 1996 SC 715, Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ
Petition No.34804 of 2004), State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR-750,

## Text

5 All. Sant Lal Vs The Chief Audit Officer & Ors.

775
13. In view of the above impugned order dated 9.9.2014, the charge framed dated
25.11.2014 in the present case as well as the entire proceedings of the case no. 100 of 2011 (State
Vs. Sher Singh and another) arising out of case crime no. 176 of 2011, under Section 7/13
Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh pending in the Court of Special
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Aligarh is hereby quashed.

14. The application is allowed accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ A No.- 29542 Of 1997

Sant Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Audit Officer & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ganga Prasad, S.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

The dispute relates to non payment of retiral dues. The respondents Have stated that all the
payments stated in para 11 of Supplementary Affidavits have been paid except 10 per cent G.P.F. But the
court do not find any Justification for non-payment of 10 per cent G.P.F. particularly when petitioner Has
retired on 31.10.1994. Withholding of amount of G.P.F. for the last 21 and More years is patently illegal and
for this reason respondents are liable to Compensate petitioner by paying appropriate interest. Apparently,
delay in Payment of 10 per cent of G.P.F. to the petitioner is without any authority of law.

Later on the court allow this writ petition directing respondents to ensure payment of 10 per cent G.P.F.
amount to petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order along with
12 per cent compound Interest which shall be computed after six months from the date of retirement of
Petitioner till actual payment.Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost, which we
Quantify to Rs. 50,000/-.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed:
Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks Vs. Barnard and others 1964 AC
1129,the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta JT 1993 (6) SC 307,Ghaziabad
Development Authorities Vs. Balbir Singh JT 2004 (5)SC 17, Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(1996) 6 SCC 530,Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558,Delhi Development Authority Vs.
Skipper Construction And Another AIR 1996 SC 715, Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ
Petition No.34804 of 2004), State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR-750,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
&
Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

2. The dispute relates to non payment of retiral dues. In para 11 of Supplementary
Affidavit, petitioner has explained unpaid dues as under:

(a) Salary for the period of:

(i) 1.11.1989 to 7.7.1990 (8 months 7 days)

(ii) 1.1.1980 to 30.4.1988 (4 months)

(iii) 1.8.1988 to 15.11.1988 (3 months)

(iv) Increment dues payable on 1.6.1986, 1.6.1989, 1.6.1990, 1.6.1997, 1.6.1998,
1.6.1993 and other legal dues.

(b) death-cum-retirement gratuity.

(c) Commuted value of authentic formation of pension.

(d) Leave encasement for earned leave.

(e) saving element of group insurance.

(f) 10 % G.P. Funds

(g) 6th Pay Commission in the monthly Pension.

3. In para 10 of Supplementary Counter Affidavit, respondents have stated that all the
payments stated in para 11 of Supplementary Affidavit have been paid except 10 per cent G.P.F.

4. We do not find any justification for non payment of 10 per cent G.P.F. particularly when
petitioner has retired on 31.10.1994. Withholding of amount of G.P.F. for the last 21 and more
years is patently illegal and for this reason respondents are liable to compensate petitioner by
paying appropriate interest.
5 All. Sant Lal Vs The Chief Audit Officer & Ors.

777
5. Time and again, this Court has expressed its concern and many a time has taken serious
view, imposing penal interest and exemplary cost on the employer and other authorities responsible
for delay in payment of retiral dues which is a fundamental right of employee concerned within the
purview of Article 21 of the Constitution, yet has not resulted in improvement. The employer and
other authorities, responsible for such payment, are unabatedly going on causing a constant
harassment to the poor retired employees taking advantage of their helplessness. This is really
unfortunate and shameful.

6. Apparently, delay in payment of 10 per cent of G.P.F. to the petitioner is without any
authority of law. It has caused only due to their own conjunctures and surmises and for non
statutory alleged practice and bottleneck created thereby. This kind of practice perhaps observed to
harass a poor retired employee. In the absence of any other valid reason shown by learned counsel
for respondents, this Court is justified to infer as above. Such approach cannot be approved or
condoned but deserve to be castigated and condemned in the strongest words.

7. A system controlled by bureaucrats can create wrangles to device something which is
formulated by policy makers for the benefit of the citizen is writ large from this case. A beneficial
scheme made for social welfare of old and retired employees, can be twisted by the system creating
a nightmare to retired employees, as is quite evident. The constitutional obligation though pen
down to reach the people but Executive, habitual of remaining static or move slow or no movement
at all, can render such scheme quite ineffective and inoperative. Something due today may not be
available to a person right in time. It is like a person starving today is assured food to be provide
after a month or two by which time he may die of hunger or the foodstuff itself may rot. If this is
not unconstitutional then what else can be. The pain and torture faced by retired employee and his
family, in such circumstances, can be easily visualised and felt but cannot be assessed in the same
way only those who really suffer, know it. This pain and humiliation cannot be compensated in
terms of money.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondents simply tried to shift responsibility of delayed
payment of retiral benefits to petitioner but the fact remain undenied that delay is wholly
unreasonable. The petitioner, a retired employee, had no role whatsoever except of suffering the
cause.

9. Withholding of pension and other retiral benefits of retired employees for years together
is not only illegal and arbitrary but a sin if not an offence since no law has declared so. The
officials, who are still in service and are instrumental in such delay causing harassment to the
retired employee must however feel afraid of committing such a sin. It is morally and socially
obnoxious. It is also against the concept of social and economic justice which is one of the
founding pillar of our constitution.

10. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in the people of
India. The Constitution has been enacted "for the people, by the people and of the people". A
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man
and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.

11. Regarding harassment of a common referring to observations of Lord Hailsham in
Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks Vs. Barnard and
others 1964 AC 1129, the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta JT
1993 (6) SC 307 held as under;

"An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the
State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law....... A public functionary if he acts
maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not
an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for
it must suffer it...........Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and
legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous."
(para 10)

12. The above observations as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad Development
Authorities Vs. Balbir Singh JT 2004 (5) SC 17.

13. The respondents being "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, its officers
are public functionaries. As observed above, under our Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people.
Every limb of constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public authorities
acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their
behaviour. It is high time that this Court should remind respondents that they are expected to
perform in a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and avoidable
harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex-employees like the petitioner. The
respondents have the support of entire machinery and various powers of statute. An ordinary citizen
or a common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its instrumentalities.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impressible.
This may harm the common man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime
and corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance. An ordinary citizen
instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in
offices instead of standing against it. It is on account of, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched
status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of
helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the
financial strength to match inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the
credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention are
being allowed to linger on and remain unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner
which is arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative
discretion which shields action of administrative authority but where it is found that the exercise of
power is capricious or other than bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and
rise to occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is the responsibility
of Court in such matters to immediately rescue such common man so that he may have the
5 All. Sant Lal Vs The Chief Audit Officer & Ors.

779
confidence that he is not helpless but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain
arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on the part of the public
functionaries.

14. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax
Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due
diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and
harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that the Government
or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a
common and helpless man, this Court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring
the authorities to law.

15. In Registered Society Vs. Union of India and Others (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex
court said:

"No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide
but you can not hold me personally liable" No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to
act in a manner which is arbitrary".

16. In Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558 the Apex Court has held:

"An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man
who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own
profit."

17. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another AIR 1996
SC 715 has held as follows:

"A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure
and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just
retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that
they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become
soft, supine and spineless."

18. Now, coming to another aspect of the matter, if retiral benefits are paid with extra
ordinary delay, the Court should award suitable interest which is compensatory in nature so as to
cause some solace to the harassed employee. No Government official should have the liberty of
harassing a hopeless employee by withholding his/her lawful dues for a long time and thereafter to
escape from any liability so as to boast that nobody can touch him even if he commits an ex facie
illegal, unjust or arbitrary act. Every authority howsoever high must always keep in mind that
nobody is above law. The hands of justice are meant not only to catch out such person but it is also
the constitutional duty of Court of law to pass suitable orders in such matters so that such illegal
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acts may not be repeated, not only by him/her but others also. This should be a lesson to everyone
committing such unjust act.

19. Interest on delayed payment on retiral dues has been upheld time and against in a
catena of decision. This Court in Shamal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition
No.34804 of 2004) decided on 6.12.2005 held:

"Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed
payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in
advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the
petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on
the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in
payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such
dues. In the case of State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmnanaban Nair, 1985 (1) SLR-750, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

"Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in
advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance
of these two documents should not be completed at least 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 months. The necessity for
prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement
cannot be over-emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay
panel interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two
months from the date of retirement."

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for
interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained."

20. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that non payment of ten per cent
G.P.F. amount to petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. There was no justification at all for
respondents to delay payment thereof.

21. The amount of G.P.F. is obviously the money which belong to employee and if a
person who has retired in 1994 is not paid his own money for more than two decades, there can be
nothing more serious and harsh on the part of respondents. The respondents are liable to be
condemned in strongest words.

22. We partly allow this writ petition directing respondents to ensure payment of 10 per
cent G.P.F. amount to petitioner within two months from the date of production of certified copy of
this order along with 12 per cent compound interest which shall be computed after six months from
the date of retirement of petitioner till actual payment. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost,
which we quantify to Rs. 50,000/-. This amount shall be paid to petitioner by respondents and they
5 All. Smt. Vidyawati Vs State Of U.P.

781
 are at liberty to recover the said amount from Officer(s) concerned, who are/is found responsible
for such lapse, after making enquiry in accordance with law.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J.

Writ C No.- 36109 Of 1993

Smt. Vidyawati ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
V. Sahai, Kamleshwar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.

Possession of Surplus Land Under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 - Preparation
of Panchnama/Possession Memo in Presence of Independent Witnesses Constitutes Valid Actual
Possession - Presence of Owner Not Necessary - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal
Act 1999 Has No Application When Possession Already Taken - Petitioner's land of 35980.53 sq.
metres declared surplus under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (Act 1976); petitioner challenged
order dated 21.06.1993 rejecting application under Section 20(1) of Act 1976 for exemption and contended
that as actual possession was never taken, the land was available to her after Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 (Act 1999) came into force; respondents filed possession memo dated
07.12.1987 duly signed by revenue officials and independent witnesses showing possession of 35980.53 sq.
metres of land in four khasra numbers was taken by Sri Om Pal Singh, Land Inspector as representative of
Collector, in presence of witnesses; possession further transferred to Meerut Development Authority (MDA) on
27.06.1989; Held, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession
of acquired land; where land is vacant, act of concerned State authority going to spot and preparing a
panchnama ordinarily constitutes sufficient taking of actual possession; presence of owner or occupant of land
to effectuate taking of possession is not necessary; possession cannot be taken in CPC symbolical sense but
preparation of panchnama in presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures thereon
constitutes actual possession; subsequent retention by erstwhile owner amounts only to illegal or unlawful
possession which does not bind the Government; petitioner was out of station when possession was taken
and her absence does not invalidate the possession; principles crystallized in Banda Development Authority,
Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(5) SCC 394; Held, possession validly taken on 07.12.1987 and
transferred to MDA on 27.06.1989; Act 1999 has no application; writ petition dismissed. (Paras 11-27)
Writ Petition Dismissed
Case Law Discussed:
Balwant Narayan Bhagde vs. M.D. Bhagwat and others, 1976(1) SCC 700