# Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed] v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-08-22
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1517 of 2001
- **Bench:** Dinesh Maheshwari, Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sewak-saran-gupta-objection-filed-v-state-of-u-p-43408
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., A.K. Srivastava, Ashok Kumar
Srivastava,
Deepak
Seth,
Sanjieva
Shankhdhar
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
interest-delay in payment of retiral
benefits-petitioner retired on 31.03.99
working
as
District
Judge-03.08.99
pension paper forwarded to Director
Pension 29.01.2000 pension payment
order send to Accountant General-after 8
months error rectified on 20.09.2000
pension paid on 12.02.01-held-entitled
for interest @ 12% p.a on delayed
payment-payable within 30 days-after
expiry of aforesaid period 9% interest
shall be payable on total amount of
interest-from the date of judgment to
actual payment made.
Held: Para-30 & 31

## Text

202
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
11. Since the order impugned leads to
civil consequences, therefore the same
could not be passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing. Reference may be
had to the judgments of the Apex Court in
M/s Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd.
Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., A.I.R.
1975 Supreme Court 266, Raghunath
Thakur Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., A.I.R
1989 SC 620, and M/s. Southern Painters
(Supra), Gronsons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
A.I.R. 2001 SC 3707, as well as Division
Bench judgment of this Court in (Smt Rajni
Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), (2010
(6) AWC 5762) and (Society for Education
and Welfare Awareness (Sewa) thru it
secretary vs. Union of India thru Ministry of
Human welfare (Manav Sansadhan) New
Delhi and others) (2011 (6) ADJ 787).
12. Learned standing counsel has
not been able to demonstrate from the
perusal
of
recovery
certificate
that
anywhere the version of the petitioners
has been considered. It is settled law that
any
order
which
leads
to
civil
consequences
must
be
passed
in
conformity with the principles of natural
justice. Since here the impugned order has
been passed in derogation of principle of
natural
justice,
therefore,
impugned
orders/recovery certificates cannot be
sustained in the eye of law.
13.
In the result, writ petition
succeeds
and is allowed
and the
impugned
order
dated
22.8.2015
(annexure- 4A, 4B, 4C) and the recovery
certificate dated 16.10.2015 (annexure-6)
are hereby quashed. However, allowing
the writ petition will not preclude the
respondents to proceed in accordance
with law.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.02.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Service Bench No. 1517 of 2001
Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed]
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
C.S. Pandey, Chandra Shekhar Pandey,
Vijay Dixit
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., A.K. Srivastava, Ashok Kumar
Srivastava,
Deepak
Seth,
Sanjieva
Shankhdhar
Constitution of India, Art.-226-claim of
interest-delay in payment of retiral
benefits-petitioner retired on 31.03.99
working
as
District
Judge-03.08.99
pension paper forwarded to Director
Pension 29.01.2000 pension payment
order send to Accountant General-after 8
months error rectified on 20.09.2000
pension paid on 12.02.01-held-entitled
for interest @ 12% p.a on delayed
payment-payable within 30 days-after
expiry of aforesaid period 9% interest
shall be payable on total amount of
interest-from the date of judgment to
actual payment made.
Held: Para-30 & 31
30. Retiral benefits are the accumulated
savings of a lifetime of service of a
Government servants. In a large number
of cases, the retiral benefits are the only
source of livelihood and means of
survival
not
only
for
the
retired
Government servant but for his entire
family. If the retirel benefits are not paid
in time, the very survival of the retired
employee and his family members comes
1 All.
 Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
203
under question. The respondents should
realise that the delay in payment of the
retiral dues of a retired Government
servant may have a devastating effect on
the lives of the retired Government
servant and his family causing untold
hardship. In the matter of grant of retiral
benefits
to
the
retired
government
servants, the respondents are expected
to be alive to the problem of the retired
employee and are expected to strictly
adhere to the time-schedule prescribed.
31. In the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no justification on the
part of the contesting respondents for the
inordinate delay in processing the pension
papers of the petitioner. The claim of the
petitioner for interest on delayed payment
of his retiral benefits is, thus, upheld.
Case Law discussed:
(1985) 1 SCC 429; (1999) 3 SCC 438; (2008) 3
SCC 44.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)
1. Shri Sewak Saran Gupta, a retired
District Judge, has preferred this writ
petition praying inter alia for a direction
to the respondents to pay interest @ 18%
per annum on the delayed payment of his
retiral dues.
2.
After putting in 33 years of
unblemished service, the petitioner, on
attaining the age of superannuation, retired
from service from the post of District Judge,
Deoria on 31.03.1999. Nine months before
the petitioner retired, in July, 1998, the
petitioner was served with a letter dated
07.07.1998 sent by the Registry of High
Court, requiring him to submit his pension
papers. It is alleged that in response to the
said letter, the petitioner sent his pension
papers, duly completed in all respect, along
with his letter dated 03.08.1998 to the
Registry of High Court. Just before his
retirement, the petitioner sent a letter dated
19.03.1999 to the Registry with a request that
his pension and gratuity papers be forwarded
to the Directorate of Pension at the earliest so
that he may get his retiral dues immediately
after his retirement and he may not have to
face any financial hardship. The petitioner
further requested that in case it was not
possible to process his pension papers at an
early date, for any reason, whatsoever, then
provisional pension and gratuity be paid to
him as per the rules. The petitioner is said to
have sent reminders on 19.06.1999 &
04.08.1999 for expediting the payment of his
retiral dues. On 03.08.1999 the respondent
no.5 forwarded the pension papers of the
petitioner to the Director, Directorate of
Pension, Lucknow-the respondent no. 2. The
respondent no. 2, after about four months, on
29.01.2000, sent the 'Pension Payment Order'
to the Accountant General (A&E) II, UP,
Allahabad-the respondent no.3. Eight months
thereafter,
the
respondent
no.3
on
20.09.2000, after getting the alleged error in
the 'Pension Payment Order' rectified by the
respondent no.2, sent the requisite order to
the Accountant General (A&E), Madhya
Pradesh, Gwalior - the respondent no.6 for
disbursement of petitioner's pension and
other retiral benefits. The respondent no.6, in
turn, on 20.12.2000 forwarded the pension
papers of the petitioner to the Treasury
Officer, District Datia, Madhya Pradesh - the
respondent no.7. Ultimately, on 12.02.2001,
the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.
3,49,470/-
towards
gratuity
and
on
19.02.2001, the petitioner was paid a sum of
Rs 4,76,531/- towards commutation of
pension and Rs. 1,85,938/- towards arrears of
pension. A sum of Rs 36,092/- towards
Group Insurance had already been paid to the
petitioner on 25.07.2000. Shortly thereafter
the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs 530/-
towards gratuity which was earlier withheld
204
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for want of some ''No Dues Certificate'. The
petitioner made a representation to the
respondent no.5 claiming interest @ 18% per
annum on delayed payment of his retiral
dues. But, as no action was taken by the
authority
concerned,
the
petitioner
approached this Court by means of the
present writ petition claiming penal interest
on delayed payment of his retiral dues.
3.

The
respondents
(except
respondent no.4) have filed their separate
counter affidavits. In their respective
counter
affidavits,
the
contesting
respondents have stated the manner in
which the matter was dealt with at their
end and have tried to account for the time
taken by them in processing the pension
papers of the petitioner and have
submitted that there was no deliberate or
willful delay on their part.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the opposite party no.5, it has
been stated that as the petitioner was due
to retire on 31.03.1999 and a such, in
view of the G.O. dated 28.07.89, a letter
dated 07.07.1998 was sent to the
petitioner requiring him to submit his
pension and gratuity papers. A copy of the
said letter was also endorsed to the
District Judge, Siddharthnagar and Ballia
and to the Senior Accounts Officer,
Accountant General, U.P., Allahabad for
submission of ''No Dues Certificate'. A
copy of the said letter was also endorsed
to the Joint Director (Treasury), Camp
Office, Allahabad, requiring the latter to
submit the History/Statement of Service
of the petitioner to the former. In response
to the said letter, the petitioner sent his
pension papers, along with his letter dated
03.08.1998 to the Registry of High Court.
The District Judge, Siddharthnagar and
Ballia and the office of the Accountant
General sent the desired ''No Dues
Certificate' on 04.08.1998, 17.09.1998
and
03.08.1998
respectively.
The
petitioner also submitted his revised
pension papers according to the revised
enhanced pay along with his letter dated
18.12.1998. It has been then alleged that
after obtaining reports from various
sections, the then Additional Registrar of
High Court along with his office note
dated 25.05.1999 forwarded the pension
papers of the petitioner to the Registrar
General for laying the file before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for his perusal and
orders; and vide Court's order dated
29.05.1999, Hon'ble the Chief Justice
granted his approval for sending the
pension papers of the petitioner to the
respondent no. 2 for necessary action.
5. In paragraph 13 of the said
counter affidavit, it has been alleged that
the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
along with the papers pertaining to the
petitioner were received by the Deputy
Registrar (M) on 31.05.1999 and on the
same day it was sent to Administration 'A'
Section and was given to the then dealing
assistant. It has been stated that after
31.05.1999 there were summer vacations
from 01.06.1999 to 30.06.1999 and the
dealing assistant proceeded to avail
summer holidays from 02.06.1999 to
15.06.1999 and then from 16.06.1999 to
30.06.1999,
the
concerned
dealing
assistant was deputed on the work of
codification of cases and thereafter he
proceeded
on
medical
leave
w.e.f.
04.07.1999 to 20.07.1999. He resumed
duty on 21.07.1999 after availing medical
leave and thereafter prepared the draft
letter on 22.07.1999 for sending the
pension papers of the petitioner to the
Director, Directorate of Pension, U.P.,
Lucknow
for
necessary
action
and
1 All.
 Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
205
thereafter on 03.08.1999, the respondent
no. 5 forwarded the pension papers of the
petitioner to the respondent no. 2 for
settlement of his pension and gratuity etc.
6. According to the respondent no.5,
there
was
no
deliberate
delay
in
processing the pension papers of the
petitioner. On the contrary, it has been
alleged, that prompt action was taken in
forwarding the pension papers of the
petitioner to the respondent no. 2. It has
been further alleged that the request for
payment of provisional pension made by
the
petitioner
in
his
letter
dated
19.03.1999 could not be acceded to as the
file was already under submission to
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for approval.
The only duty cast upon the respondent
no. 5, in so far as the District Judiciary
was concerned, it is alleged, was to
forward the pension papers of the
petitioner to the Directorate of Pension. It
has been submitted that the respondent
no. 5 was not responsible for the
disbursement of retiral dues of the
petitioner and, as such, the respondent no.
5 was not obliged to pay any penal
interest for the delay, if any, in
disbursement of the retiral dues of the
petitioner.
7. As per the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2,
the pension papers of the petitioner sent
by respondent no. 5 along with his letter
dated 03.08.1999 were received in the
office of respondent no. 2 on 13.09.1999
and on 29.01.2000 the ''Pension Payment
Order' for making necessary payments
was sent to the respondent no. 3. It has
been stated that the details of service
history and average pay, which were
necessary for processing the pension
papers of the petitioner, were supplied to
the respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 4
on 13.12.1999 and immediately thereafter
the pension papers of the petitioner were
processed and payment order was issued.
It has been categorically stated that the
retiral dues of the petitioner had been paid
and as per rule the petitioner was entitled
for interest on delayed payment of
gratuity only @ 12% per annum which
was to be sanctioned by the opposite party
no. 5.
8. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of respondent no.3 in
which it has been stated that the 'Pension
Payment
Order'
received
by
the
respondent no.3 from the office of
respondent
no.2
contained
certain
omissions/errors and, as such, the same
could not be processed at his end. It has
been stated that respondent no.3 in this
regard sent a letter to respondent no.2 on
19.04.2000
for
rectifying
'Pension
Payment Order' of the petitioner. It has
been stated that after rectification of the
pension payment order it was received in
the concerned section of the office of
respondent no.3 in the month of August,
2000 and on 20.09.2000 Special Seal
Authority was issued by the respondent
no.3 to the Accountant General (A&E),
MP, Gwalior -the respondent no.6 for
necessary action in the matter. In his
counter affidavit the respondent no.3 has
alleged that there was no delay on his part
in processing the pension papers of the
petitioner and as such the petitioner was
not
entitled
to
any
relief
against
respondent no.3
9. The respondent no.6, in his
counter affidavit has alleged that the
pension
papers
of
the
petitioner,
forwarded by respondent no.3 under his
Special Seal Authority, were received in
206
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his
office
on
12.10.2000
and
on
20.12.2000, with great promptitude, the
papers were forwarded by him to the
respondent no.7 for necessary action at
his end. It has been alleged that the
respondent
no.6
was
in
no
way
responsible for the delay, in any, in
payment of the retiral dues of the
petitioner.
10. The respondent no.7 has also
filed his counter affidavit alleging therein
that there was no delay, whatsoever, on
his part in making payment of the retiral
dues of the petitioner. It has been alleged
that the certain information was required
to be furnished by the petitioner and as
soon the said information was furnished
by the petitioner, the retiral dues were
paid to him.
11. The petitioner, by filing
rejoinder
affidavits
to
the
counter
affidavits filed on behalf of the contesting
respondents, has refuted the stand taken
by the respondents and has reiterated the
contents of the writ petition. Though the
petitioner has made a prayer in the writ
petition for a direction to the respondents
to pay the remaining gratuity and G.P.F.
alongwith interest but since all the
outstanding amount has been paid to the
petitioner, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has confined his prayer for
payment of interest to the petitioner on
delayed payment of his retiral dues.
12. Sri Vijay Dixit, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, has submitted
that the petitioner had completed all the
formalities and had submitted all the
papers required for grant of his retiral
benefits much before his retirement, but
unnecessarily
and
without
any
justification, the petitioner was paid his
retiral dues after a considerable delay on
each count, causing uncalled for financial
hardship and as such the petitioner is
entitled to interest on delayed payment of
his retiral dues.
13. Per contra, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Gaurav
Mehrotra, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent no.5 have
submitted, in unison, that the delay, if
any, in payment of the retiral dues of the
petitioner was neither deliberate nor it
was caused on account of any inaction on
the part of the contesting respondents and
as such the contesting respondents could
not be blamed for the delay, if any, in
payment of the retiral
dues of the
petitioner.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
15. Pension is not a bounty payable
on the sweet will and the pleasure of the
Government
is
a
well-settled
legal
proposition. It is also well settled that the
retiral dues of an employee have to be
paid with promptitude or else the
Government is liable to pay interest
unless the delay can be attributed to the
employee concerned or the Government is
able to show that there was some cogent
and valid justification for the delay.
16. In the case at hand, the petitioner
retired from service on 31.3.1999 and his
retiral dues were paid to him in February,
2001. Thus, there cannot be any dispute
that there has been an inordinate delay in
payment of the retiral dues of the
petitioner. In the counter affidavits filed
on behalf of the contesting respondents,
the delay has not been attributed to any
1 All.
 Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
207
fault or omission on the part of the
petitioner. What is to be seen now is as to
whether
the
respondents
have
any
justification
on
their
part
for
the
inordinate delay in making payment of the
retiral dues to the petitioner.
17. The petitioner retired from
service on 31.3.1999 and, admittedly, for
the first time a letter dated 07.07.1998
was sent by the Registry of High Court to
the petitioner for submission of his papers
for payment of his retiral dues. It is not in
dispute that in response to the said letter,
the petitioner submitted his pension
papers along with his letter dated
03.08.1998 to the Registry of High Court
but eventually it was on 25.05.1999, after
more than nine and a half months, that the
pension papers of the petitioner were
forwarded by the Registry for laying the
file before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
perusal and orders. Nine months is too
long a time for the Registry of High Court
to process the pension papers of the
petitioner, a Judicial Officer belonging to
the District Judiciary, when apparently
there was nothing adverse against the
petitioner. Admittedly, the ''No Dues
Certificate' from the District Judge,
Siddharthnagar and Ballia and the office
of the Accountant General were received
on
04.08.1998,
17.09.1998
and
03.08.1998 respectively. It is hard to
comprehend that it took eight months for
the Registry to process the pension papers
of the petitioner and place it before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for approval.
The explanation given by respondent no.5
for the delay in processing the pension
papers of the petitioner is, thus, far from
satisfactory and is unacceptable.
18. Apart from the above, after the
Hon'ble
Chief
Justice
granted
his
approval, the pension papers of the
petitioner should have been forwarded to
the respondent no.2 for necessary action
forthwith. But, the Registry of High Court
took almost two months to do so. We are
of the firm opinion that the explanation
offered by the respondent no.5, in
paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, for
the time taken by the Registry in
forwarding the pension papers of the
petitioner after the Hon'ble the Chief
Justice granted his approval is flimsy and
is an attempt to cover up the failure in
taking prompt action in the matter.
19. In so far as the respondent nos.2
& 3 are concerned, the pension papers
forwarded by the respondent no.5 were
received in the office of respondent no.2 on
13.09.1999 and on 29.01.2000 the ''Pension
Payment Order' for making necessary
payments was sent by him to the respondent
no.3. The respondent no.2 took three and a
half months to process the pension papers of
the petitioner. The respondent no.3 has
justified the time taken by him by stating
that the information relevant for processing
the papers was furnished by the respondent
no.4 only on 13.12.1999 and immediately
thereafter the pension papers of the
petitioner were processed and payment
order was issued. But, noticeably, the date
on which information was sought from the
respondent no.4 has no where been
mentioned.
20. In the counter affidavit, filed on
behalf of respondent no.3 it has been
stated that there was no delay on his part
in processing the pension papers of the
petitioner and as such the petitioner was
not
entitled
to
any
relief
against
respondent no.3. Explaining the time
taken by him, the respondent no.3 has
stated that in the 'Pension Payment Order'
208
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
received by him from the office of
respondent
no.2
there
were
certain
omissions/ errors and, as such, a letter
dated 19.04.2000 was sent to respondent
no.2
for
its
rectification.
After
rectification, it is alleged that the 'Pension
Payment Order' was received in the office
in the month of August, 2000 and on
20.09.2000 Special Seal Authority was
issued by the respondent no.3 to the
Accountant General (A&E), MP, Gwalior
-the respondent no.6 for necessary action
in the matter. There is nothing on record
to indicate as to why it took almost two
and a half months to write to respondent
no. 2 for rectification of the alleged
omission / error and why it took almost
four months for the respondent no.2 to
make the necessary rectification and send
the ''Pension Paper Order' back to the
respondent no.3. It can be safely inferred
that the respondent no.2 did not act with
the kind of promptness expected of him in
such matters. In any case, it was a matter
between respondent nos.2 and 3 and the
delay on their part is not attributable to
the petitioner.
21. As per the counter affidavit filed
by respondent no.6, the Special Seal
Authority sent by respondent no.3 was
received in his office on 12.10.2000 and
on 20.12.2000, with great promptitude,
the papers were forwarded by him to the
respondent no.7 for necessary action at
his end. The respondent no.6 took more
than two months, just to forward the
pension papers of the petitioner to the
respondent no.7. By no stretch of
imagination it can be said that the
respondent no.6 acted with promptitude as
alleged by him.
22. There is no quarrel between the
parties that as per the Rules and
instructions
laying
down
the
timeschedule for the various steps to be taken
in regard to the payment of pension of a
government servant in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the Head of Office, or other
authority responsible for preparing the
pension papers is obliged to initiate the
pension case, two years before retirement
of the government servant and after
collecting
the
essential
information
necessary for working out the qualifying
service,
the
deficiencies
and
imperfections, if any, in the servicebook/records is to be removed at least
eight months in advance of the date of
retirement of the government servant.
Then the process of determining the
admissible pension and gratuity is to be
positively completed within a period of 2
months and the pension papers are to be
sent to the Accountant General not later
than 6 months before the date of
retirement. The office of the Accountant
General is obliged to issue the pension
payment order one month in advance of
the date of retirement. The authorities are
obliged to ensure that the payment of
superannuation pension commences on
the first of the month following the month
in which the government servant retires.
23. In the case at hand, the timeschedule for processing the pension
papers of the petitioner has not been
adhered to. Admittedly, the process for
preparing the pension papers of the
petitioner
was
initiated
only
on
07.07.1998, nine months before the date
of retirement of the petitioner. Whereas,
the said process ought to have been
initiated two years before the date of
retirement of the petitioner. In the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
no.5, there is no explanation, whatsoever,
for the delay in initiating the process for
preparing the pension papers of the
1 All.
 Sewak Saran Gupta [Objection filed] Vs. State of U.P.
209
petitioner in time. The Registry of High
Court was well aware of the date of
retirement of the petitioner and as such,
there was no justification on the part of
the Registry in not initiating the process
for preparing the pension papers of the
petitioner
in
time.
Moreover,
after
receiving the pension papers, the Registry
took almost a year to process the same for
which, there is no valid justification.
Similarly,
the
other
contesting
respondents have not been able to justify
the time taken by them at their end in
processing the pension papers of the
petitioner.
24.

After
giving
thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions and
after examining the material placed on
record, we are satisfied that the petitioner
is entitled to receive interest for the
inordinate delay in payment of his retiral
dues.
25.
The learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to a G.O. dated
15.07.1997
which
provides
that
a
Government employee is entitled to interest
on delayed payment of gratuity over and
above three months from the date it became
due till the time of its actual payment. In fact,
in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 & 2, it has been admitted
that the petitioner was entitled to interest on
delayed payment of gratuity amount as per
G.O. dated 06.12.1994 & 15.07.1997. When
confronted, the other contesting respondents
have also admitted the said entitlement of the
petitioner to interest. Paragraph 4 (relevant
portion) and 13 of the counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 being
relevant are being quoted below:
"4. ..... As per rule, the petitioner is
entitled for interest on delayed payment of
gratuity amount of @ 12%, which ought
to have been sanctioned by the Head of
the Department of the petitioner i.e.
Registrar, High Court, Allahabad.
13. That in reply to the contents of,
Paras 18 & 19 of the writ petition, it is
submitted that payment of interest on
delayed payment of gratuity amount only
is admissible to the petitioner as per G.O.
dated 6.12.1994 and 15.7.1997 (copy
plays at Annexure No. 10 to the writ
petition). Necessary orders in this regard
is required to be issued by the Head of the
Department
of
the
petitioner
and
responsibility for delay is also to be
ascertained, for further necessary action."
26. Though the respondents have
admitted their liability and have stated
that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the petitioner was entitled to be paid
interest on gratuity from the date of
expiry of three months from the date, it
became due, as regards interest on
delayed payment of pension on other
retirel dues, the respondents have stated
that there was no provision in the rules for
payment of interest.
27. The question of payment of
interest on delayed payment of retiral
dues is no more res integra and is settled
by a catena of decisions of the Apex
Court. In State of Kerala & Ors.Vs. M.
Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429,
the Apex Court in paragraph no. 2 of the
said report held as follows:-
"2. Usually the delay occurs by reason
of non-production of the L.P.C. (last pay
certificate) and the N.L.C. (no liability
certificate) from the concerned Departments
but both these documents pertain to matters,
records whereof would be with the
concerned Government Departments. Since
210
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 month. The necessity for
prompt payment of the retirement dues to a
Government servant immediately after his
retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it
would not be unreasonable to direct that the
liability to pay penal interest on these dues at
the current market rate should commence at
the expiry of two months from the date of
retirement."
28. In Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of
UP & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 438, the while
considering the Rules and instructions
which prescribe the time-schedule for the
various steps to be taken in regard to the
payment of pension and other retiral
benefits of government servants in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, the Apex Court
has held that the Government was obliged
to follow the rules and the delay in
settlement of retiral dues should be
avoided at all costs. Paragraph no. 5 of the
said report is reproduced below:-
"5. We have referred in sufficient
detail to the Rules and instructions which
prescribe the time-schedule for the
various steps to be taken in regard to the
payment of pension and other retiral
benefits. This we have done to remind the
various governmental departments of their
duties in initiating various steps at least
two years in advance of the date of
retirement. If the Rules/instructions are
followed strictly, much of the litigation
can be avoided and retired government
servants will not feel harassed because
after all, grant of pension is not a bounty
but a right of the government servant. The
Government is obliged to follow the
Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this
order in letter and in spirit. Delay in
settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating
and must be avoided at all costs. Such
delays are occurring even in regard to
family pension for which too there is a
prescribed procedure. This is indeed
unfortunate. In cases where a retired
government servant claims interest for
delayed payment, the court can certainly
keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed
in the Rules/instructions apart from other
relevant factors applicable to each case."
29. In the case of S.K. Dua v. State
of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Apex
Court has held that in the absence of
statutory rules, administrative instructions
or guidelines, an employee can claim
interest relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21
of the Constitution. :
14. In the circumstances, prima facie,
we are of the view that the grievance voiced
by the appellant appears to be well founded
that he would be entitled to interest on such
benefits. If there are statutory rules
occupying the field, the appellant could
claim payment of interest relying on such
rules. If there are administrative instructions,
guidelines or norms prescribed for the
purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of
interest on that basis. But even in absence of
statutory rules, administrative instructions or
guidelines, an employee can claim interest
under Part III of the Constitution relying on
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the
nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well
1 All. Umesh Chand Yadav Vs. The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors.
211
founded and needs no authority in support
thereof. In that view of the matter, in our
considered opinion, the High Court was not
right in dismissing the petition in limine even
without issuing notice to the respondents.
30.

Retiral
benefits
are
the
accumulated savings of a lifetime of
service of a Government servants. In a
large number of cases, the retiral benefits
are the only source of livelihood and
means of survival not only for the retired
Government servant but for his entire
family. If the retirel benefits are not paid
in time, the very survival of the retired
employee and his family members comes
under question. The respondents should
realise that the delay in payment of the
retiral dues of a retired Government
servant may have a devastating effect on
the lives of the retired Government
servant and his family causing untold
hardship. In the matter of grant of retiral
benefits
to
the
retired
government
servants, the respondents are expected to
be alive to the problem of the retired
employee and are expected to strictly
adhere to the time-schedule prescribed.
31. In the facts and circumstances
mentioned above, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no justification on the
part of the contesting respondents for the
inordinate delay in processing the pension
papers of the petitioner. The claim of the
petitioner for interest on delayed payment
of his retiral benefits is, thus, upheld.
32.
In view of the above, this writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to calculate and make payment of
interest on the delayed payment of gratuity
to the petitioner, as per the G.O.'s
06.12.1994 & 15.07.1997. The respondents
are further directed to calculate and pay to
the petitioner interest on the delayed
payment of other retiral dues @ 12% per
annum from the date the same became due,
till the time of its actual payment. The
respondents shall ensure that the actual
payment is made to the petitioner within
30 days from the date of this order, failing
which, the entire payable amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of this order. The
respondents shall be expected to hold
necessary inquiry/inquiries to fix the
responsibility for delay and defaults in this
matter and to take further necessary action
against the erring officers/employees in
accordance with law.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
Writ-A No. 1575 of 2016
Umesh Chand Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The I.G. and Chief Security Comm. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sudhir Bharti
Constitution of India-Art.-226-Service LawPetitioner
being
selected
on
post
of
constable in RPF-during training period on
its
own
filed
affidavit
regarding
involvement in criminal case as well as
discharged
by
CJM-much
prior
to
advertisement-dismissal
order-treating
concealment of this fact in verification
forum-not available-even non consideration
of eligibility-order illegal-quashed-direction
for reconsideration keeping in view of Ram
Kumar Gupta case-given.