# Smt. Krishnawati v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 11 ILRA 35
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12642 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-krishnawati-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51013
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article
226-entitlement
to
interest on delayed payment of retiral
dues,
including
family
pension
and
provident fund, to the legal heir of a
deceased
government
employee-The
petitioner
is
the
widow
of
govt.
employee who died in service-despite
receiving a "No Dues Certificate" the
retiral dues were not disbursed in a
timely manner-After prolonged delays
the dues were finally disbursed-The
court relied on Yogendra Singh Case and
Sanjay Upadhyay Case which establish
that delayed payment of pension and
retiral dues entitles the beneficiary to
interest-The
court
directed
the
respondents to pay simple interest at
8%
per
annum
for
the
delayed
period.(Para 1 to 9)
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Smt. Krishnawati Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
35

15. Subsequently, the similar views
were expressed in the case of Chairmancum-Managing
Director,
T.N.C.S.
Corporation Limited and others versus
K. Meerabai reported in JT 2006 (1) SC
444, Suresh Pathrela versus Oriental
Bank of Commerce, reported in AIR 2007
SC 199 and Union of India and others
versus Naman Singh Shekhawat reported
in 2008 (4) SCC 1 with regard to the issue
as to whether the departmental proceeding
should be kept in abeyance till the
conclusion of criminal trial was also
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Indian Overseas Bank versus P.
Ganasen and others reported in AIR 2008
SC 553 where the Supreme Court held that
where prayer is made that so long as
criminal
proceedings
are
going
on,
departmental proceedings may not be
proceeded, the Court must record a finding
that non grant of stay on a departmental
proceedings would not only prejudice the
delinquent officer, that the matter also
involves complicated question of law.

16. In the present case, once the
petitioner has already submitted himself to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
disciplinary
proceedings, he has submitted his reply that
it cannot be said that his defence can be
prejudiced during the criminal trial. One of
the main consideration for staying of the
departmental
proceedings
during
the
pendency of the criminal trial is to see that
the defence of the delinquent Government
Servant is not prejudiced in the criminal
trial. This plea is not applicable in the
present case inasmuch as the petitioner has
already tendered his response to the chargesheet in the disciplinary proceedings.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that it is
not a case for interference where the
departmental proceedings are being held on
the same charges of the criminal trial.

18. Accordingly, I do not find any
infirmity in the criminal trial proceedings
simultaneously with the criminal trial. The
writ petition is being devoid of merit is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 35
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 12642 of 2020

Smt. Krishnawati ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Bramh Narayan Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Manu Singh

A.
Service
Law
-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article
226-entitlement
to
interest on delayed payment of retiral
dues,
including
family
pension
and
provident fund, to the legal heir of a
deceased
government
employee-The
petitioner
is
the
widow
of
govt.
employee who died in service-despite
receiving a "No Dues Certificate" the
retiral dues were not disbursed in a
timely manner-After prolonged delays
the dues were finally disbursed-The
court relied on Yogendra Singh Case and
Sanjay Upadhyay Case which establish
that delayed payment of pension and
retiral dues entitles the beneficiary to
interest-The
court
directed
the
respondents to pay simple interest at
8%
per
annum
for
the
delayed
period.(Para 1 to 9)
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Yogendra Singh Vs St. of UP (2016) Law Suit
(All) 3850

2. Sanjay Upadhyay & ors Vs St. of U.P. & ors,
Writ-A No. 459 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri Bramh Narayan Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. The retiral dues of the petitioner's
deceased husband were disbursed to her
after a long delay. The petitioner has made
an application for grant of interest on the
delayed payment. The husband of the
petitioner died in harness. No dues
certificate in regard to the deceased
husband of the petitioner was issued by the
competent authority on 14.03.2005 and
verified on 18.08.2005 by the respective
competent authorities. However the retiral
dues were not paid to the petitioner. She
was made to run from pillar to post. The
petitioner instituted a writ petition before
this Court in the year 2019. Despite
directions issued by this Court the amount
was not disbursed to her which caused the
petitioner to file a contempt petition which
was registered as Contempt Petition no.
7922 of 2019. Finally the amounts to which
the petitioner was entitled upon death of
her husband were disbursed on 23.12.2019.

3. The counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the State records that the application was
filed by the petitioner for release of the
provident fund amount, family pension on
18.08.2005. No cause for the delay in
processing
the
family
pension
and
provident fund amount which is the
entitlement of the petitioner is disclosed
from the counter affidavit.

4. The delay in payment of the
aforesaid amount (consequently this Court
finds) is entirely due to the apathy of the
respondents. The death of an employee
renders the family destitute in more ways
then one. Apart from losing emotional
anchor, the sole bread earner was also lost
by the family.

5. In these circumstances it is always
expected that the State authorities should
discharge their duties with promptitude and
empathy as per law. To the contrary the
authorities adopted a callous attitude to the
plight of the petitioner. The deceased
employee's family cannot be harassed for
her entitlements by overbearing officials.
The respondents are liable to pay interest
on the delayed payment.

6. The narrative shall be fortified by
authorities in point. In Yogendra Singh Vs
State of U.P. (2016 Law Suit (All) 3850)
this Court held thus:-

"i) Pension and other retiral
benefits of all Government employees must
be sanctioned / paid in terms of the Rules,
1995 on the eve of their retirement, if there
is no legal impediment.

ii) If there is any delay in the
payment of retiral benefits and pension, the
employee shall be entitled for the interest at
the current market rate with effect from the
date of his/her retirement till the date of
actual payment. The interest on delayed
payment shall be paid by the State
Government. It will be open to the State
Government to recover it from the
officer/officials who are found to be guilty
for negligence in payment of the pension. If
11 All. Smt. Neetu Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
37
such official is retired, the amount of the
interest shall be recovered from his/her post
retiral benefits/pension after furnishing
him/her opportunity.

iii) It will be open to the State
Government to initiate proceedings against
such
official
for
taking
action
for
misconduct in terms of the Rules, 1995, if
he is in service.

50. In view of the above,
respondents are directed to pay the simple
interest at the rate of 9% from the one
month after the death of petitioners father
till the date of actual payment to them and
further to pay the GPF within a month ,if it
has already not been paid, along with the
interest at the rate of 9% as held above."

7.
The
aforesaid
judgment
was
followed
by
this
Court
in
Sanjay
Upadhyay and 5 others Vs State of U.P.
and 3 others (Writ-A No. 459 of 2019).

8. In the wake of preceding discussion
and the authorities in point this Court finds
that the respondents are liable to pay
interest to the petitioner for the delayed
payment for pension and other terminal
dues of the deceased employee. The
interest amount is fixed at 8 percent per
annum (considering the rate of interest).
The
interest
shall
be
payable
from
18.08.2005 till 23.12.2019. The interest
shall be calculated and released in favour of
the petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In case the
amount is not released within the aforesaid
period the concerned official shall be held
liable for the delayed payment of interest
after expiry of three months.

9. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 11 ILRA 37
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 16420 of 2024

Smt. Neetu Chaudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950-Disciplinary
proceedingsNatural
justice-Procedural
Flaws
in
Inquiry-Dismissal
quashed-The
court
quashed the dismissal of the petitioner,
who was an office Assistant -III in UPPCL,
due to procedural irregularities in the
disciplinary inquiry-The inquiry committee
failed to follow principles of natural
justice
and
procedural
requirements
(absence of witness examination and
cross-examination opportunities and lack
of evidence to prove charges beyond
presumptions)
under
the
UPPCL
Employees(Discipline
and
Appeal)
Regulations 2020-The court emphasized
that in disciplinary inquiries leading to
major penalties charges must be proven
with documentary and oral evidence-The
burden of proof lies on the establishment,
and procedural safeguards cannot be
waived-Thus, the dismissal and appellate
orders were set aside-The petitioner was
ordered to be reinstated with liberty to
the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry
while
ensuring
adherence
to
proper
disciplinary procedures.(Para 1 to 18)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: