# Sarvajeet Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-08
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 27102 of 2013
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tipathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarvajeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43252
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-intereston
delayed
payment
of
gratuity-no
explanation for delay given-warrants
liability of interest-direction to pay 10%
simple interest on delayed period given.
Held: Para-7
Since the date of retirement is known to the
respondents well in advance, there is no
reason for the respondents not to make
arrangement for payment of retiral benefits
to the employee well in advance so that as
soon as he 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.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC 356; 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC);
(1995) 1 UPLBEC 89; AIR 1997 SC 27; (1999)
2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC); (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599;
2001 ALJ.L.J. 2026; (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301;
1998 (1) ESC 735 (P & H); (1985) 1 SCC 429;
(2014) 8 SCC 894.

## Text

612
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30. All the three impugned orders
need to be set aside. It is accordingly set
aside.
31. The appointment of the
petitioner has already been approved by
the District Inspector of Schools and
Regional Committee. Those order have
not been recalled or cancelled. Therefore,
there is no need to send the matter to
competent authority.
32. A direction is issued to the
respondents for continuance of petitioner,
treating the impugned orders as they have
never been passed.
33. Writ petition is allowed.
34. There shall be no order as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TIPATHI, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 27102 of 2013
Sarvajeet Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.L.Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-intereston
delayed
payment
of
gratuity-no
explanation for delay given-warrants
liability of interest-direction to pay 10%
simple interest on delayed period given.
Held: Para-7
Since the date of retirement is known to the
respondents well in advance, there is no
reason for the respondents not to make
arrangement for payment of retiral benefits
to the employee well in advance so that as
soon as he 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.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1985 SC 356; 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC);
(1995) 1 UPLBEC 89; AIR 1997 SC 27; (1999)
2 UPLBEC 1006 (SC); (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1599;
2001 ALJ.L.J. 2026; (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301;
1998 (1) ESC 735 (P & H); (1985) 1 SCC 429;
(2014) 8 SCC 894.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra
Tripathi, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioner has prayed for direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2 to pay 10% interest per
annum to him from 01.7.2010 to the date
of actual payment i.e. 11.11.2012 on the
amount of Rs.8,52,837/-.
3. It appears from the record that the
petitioner was appointed as Tubewell
Operator on 24.5.1977 in the office of
respondents. He retired after attaining the age
of superannuation on 30.6.2010. He received
the payment of provident fund just after his
retirement. The respondents had not made
payment of other retiral benefits like pension,
gratuity, computation of pension etc to the
petitioner. On 22.10.2012 he made a
representation before the respondent no.2 for
payment of retiral dues. The respondent no.2
2 All] Sarvajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
613
sent a letter on 2.11.2012 to the Chief
Treasury Officer, Allahabad-respondent no.4
directing him to pay the retiral benefits to the
petitioner. The respondent no.4 gave a
cheque of Rs.8,52,837 to the petitioner on
29.10.2012. Thereafter the petitioner made a
representation before respondent no.2 on
12.12.2012 for payment of interest on the
delayed payment of retiral benefits from
1.7.2010 to 11.11.2012, which is still
pending.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is legally
entitled to receive payment of entire
retiral benefits on the date of retirement.
The respondents did not pay the entire
retiral benefits to him on the date of
retirement and they paid the retiral
benefits amounting to Rs.8,52,837/- after
more than two years and four months.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get
interest
@
10%
per
annum
from
01.7.2010 to the date of actual payment
i.e. 11.11.2012 on the aforesaid amount.
The
respondents
have
delayed
the
payment of retiral benefits willfully and
deliberately.
After
receiving
the
representation
dated
12.12.2012,
the
respondent no.2 neither paid the interest
nor have passed any order on the
representation of the petitioner till date.
The respondent no.2 did not perform his
legal and statutory duty, which is vested
in him. The action of the respondent no.2
is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and
against the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in State of Kerala & Ors.
Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC
356; O.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India &
Ors., 1987 UPLBEC 583 (SC); R. Kapur
Vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and
Publication) Income Tax and Anr., (1995) 1
UPLBEC 89; S.R. Bhanrale Vs. Union of
India and ors., AIR 1997 SC 27; Dr. Uma
Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (1999) 2
UPLBEC 1006 (SC); Vijay L. Mehrotra vs.
State of UP and others (2000) 2 UPLBEC
1599 and Gorakhpur University & others vs.
Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and others 2001
ALL. L. J. 2026; S.K. Dua Vs. State of
Haryana & Anr., (2008) 1 UPLBEC 301 and
the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in A.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab
& Ors., 1998 (1) ESC 735 (P&H); the
Division Bench judgment of this Court dated
11.8.2008 in Writ Petition No.5667 of 2001,
Smt. Kavita Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
in support of the submission that the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, has ample powers to be exercised in
appropriate and deserving cases to award
interest, in cases of inordinate delay,
attributable wholly to the employer in
settling the retrial dues.
6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, submits that the petitioner was
working as Tubewell Operator in Nalkoop
Khand, Irrigation Department, Allahabad.
He was sent on deputation to Panchayati
Raj Department pursuant to Government
Order dated 12.4.1999 and was posted as
Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Vikas
Khand Saidabad, Allahabad. He was
transferred back to his parent department on
28.7.2005. While working as Tubewell
Operator, he retired on 30.6.2010 on
attaining the age of superannuation. During
the period from September, 2004 to July,
2005, when he was posted as Gram
Panchayat
Vikas
Adhikari,
he
had
withdrawn the fund for construction of
Kisan Market but the construction work was
not completed. Therefore, by the order
dated 8.3.2006 the District Magistrate,
Allahabad
directed
recovery
of
614
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner. Against
the order of recovery, the petitioner filed a
Writ Petition No.15476 of 2007, in which
an interim order was passed on 22.3.2007
staying the recovery with condition that the
petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/-.
In compliance with the interim order, the
petitioner deposited Rs.5000/-. The said
writ petition is still pending. The petitioner
did not fill up the pension papers after his
retirement and had not fulfilled the requisite
formalities for sanction of pension, gratuity
etc. On 7.7.2010 he was asked to submit the
pension
papers
after
completing
the
requisite
formalities.
He
moved
an
application on 25.8.2010 requesting that his
pay scale be fixed by giving him benefits of
ACP as per VIth Pay Commission. The pay
scale of the petitioner was fixed on
5.10.2010 by giving him benefit of ACP on
completion of 26 years. Since the petitioner
did not deposit Rs.1,50,000/- and the matter
was subjudiced in Writ Petition No.15476
of 2007, therefore, the Executive Engineer,
Nalkoop Khand, Allahabad requested the
Additional Director, Treasury and Pension,
Allahabad on 30.8.2011 to release the
pension, gratuity etc. after withholding the
amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The respondent
no.3 sanctioned the pension and gratuity of
the petitioner on 26.9.2011 by withholding
an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. For sanction of
post retiral benefits, the petitioner was
required to be present before the Treasury
Officer for verification but he did not
approach the respondent no.4 for his
personal verification. On the representation
of the petitioner dated 22.10.2012 the
Executive
Engineer,
Nalkoop
Khand,
Allahabad requested the Treasury Officer,
Allahabad on 2.11.2012 for payment of
retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner
appeared
before
respondent
no.4
on
22.10.2012. The verification was made on
the
same
day
and
an
amount
of
Rs.8,52,837/-
was
sanctioned.
The
petitioner himself did not approach the
office of respondent no.4 for physical
verification, therefore, for the delay in
releasing
the
post
retiral
dues,
the
respondents are not responsible. The
petitioner himself is responsible for the
delay in sanction of post retiral dues and
despite several letters and reminders, he did
not approach the office of respondent no.4
for physical verification.
7. Since the date of retirement is
known to the respondents well in
advance, there is no reason for the
respondents not to make arrangement for
payment of retiral benefits to the
employee well in advance so that as soon
as he 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.
8. In the case of State of Kerala Vs
M Padmanabhan Nair and Som Prakash
(1985) 1 SCC 429, the Supreme Court
held as follows:
"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 penalty of payment of interest at the
current market rate till actual payment."
9. In a more recent decision in D D
Tewari Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam Ltd (2014) 8 SCC 894, the
2 All] Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
615
Supreme Court observed that any culpable
delay in settlement and disbursement thereof
is to be visited with penalty of payment of
interest. Hence, interest @ 9% on delayed
payment was awarded to be paid within six
weeks failing which interest @ 18% p.a.
would need to be paid. An erroneous
withholding of gratuity amount to which the
employee is legally entitled, entails penalty
on the delayed payment
10. 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 and it is a fit case where the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.
11. Normally this Court in exercise of
its equitable discretion does not settle the
State with civil liability unless the Court is
satisfied that the helpless employee had been
compelled to litigate for his survival for more
than two years and the action of the
respondent State Government and its officers
is found to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable
and malicious in non finalization of the
retiral to the petitioner in time.
12. The Court may add here that after
serving the qualifying period of service, the
employee does not ordinarily have any other
means of livelihood, when he needs them
more other than his dues. It is extremely
unjust and harsh to allow a retired employee
to wait to receive the dues, and to depend
upon his friends, relatives and children. The
right to receive retiral dues/ terminal dues is
closely linked to his right of self-respect, and
human dignity, which is included in right to
life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to
calculate and pay to the petitioner interest
on the delayed payment of the retiral
benefits amounting to Rs.8,52,837/- from
01.7.2010 to the date of actual payment i.e.
11.11.2012 @ 10% simple per annum. The
required calculation shall be made within
two months, and the interest shall be paid to
him within one month thereafter.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 30688 of 2011
Amar Pal Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Dismissal of
sub-inspector
of
police-charged
with
negligence in duty-enquiry officer submitted
report-without giving opportunity to adduce
witness-contrary to provision of Rule 1991inspite of specific ground taken in appeal as
well as revision-remained-held-principle of
natural
justice-violated-untouched
order
quashed with direction to proceed with fresh
disciplinary proceeding from the stage of
denial of opportunity.
Held: Para-19
After careful consideration of the matter,
I am of the view that the enquiry has
vitiated on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice and nonapplication of mind. Accordingly, the
dismissal order, appellate order and
revisional order dated 29th January,
2009, 03rd February, 2010 and 27th