# Suresh Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-21
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 31663 of 2009
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chandra-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43256
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Intereston 2 years delay in release of post reitiral
benefits-cause of delay unexplained -
held-entitled for interest @ 6% per
annum-with liberty to recover the same
from erring officer.
Held: Para-15
In view of the above, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is
entitled for interest on the delayed payment
of his post retiral benefits @ 6% per annum
from the date of his retirement till the date
of actual payment. The said amount shall be
paid to the petitioner by the second
respondent within four months from the
date of communication of a certified copy of
this order. It is open to the State
Government that after payment of the
amount of interest to the petitioner, as
directed above, it can hold an enquiry to
find out the person who is responsible for
the delay and deduct the amount of interest
from
the
salary/post
retiral
benefits/pension of the officer/official held
responsible for the delay.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (9) ADJ 154; Writ-A No. 16146 of 2012;
AIR 1985 SC 356; (1992) 1 UPLBEC 674.

## Text

2 All] Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
no corelation is established between the
two showing application of mind, we are
constrained to observe that it is not an
enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was
no enquiry in this case worth the name
and the order of termination based on
such
proceeding
disclosing
nonapplication
of
mind
would
be
unsustainable."
17. In respect of nature of
disciplinary proceedings the Supreme
Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India
and others11 has observed as under:
"25. It is true that the jurisdiction of
the court in judicial review is limited.
Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be
some evidence to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental
proceeding are not required to be proved
like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that the enquiry officer performs a
quasi-judicial
function,
who
upon
analysing the documents must arrive at a
conclusion
that
there
had
been
a
preponderance of probability to prove the
charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take
into consideration any irrelevant fact. He
cannot refuse to consider the relevant
facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof.
He cannot reject the relevant testimony of
the witnesses only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures. He cannot
enquire into the allegations with which
the delinquent officer had not been
charged with."
18. I have perused the orders of the
appellate authority and the revisional
authority also. The petitioner has taken
the aforesaid grounds in his memo of
appeal and revision but his appeal and
revision have also been dismissed without
adverting to the said facts.
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
non-application
of
mind.
Accordingly,
the
dismissal
order,
appellate order and revisional order dated
29th January, 2009, 03rd February, 2010
and 27th November, 2010, as are
impugned in this writ petition, passed by
the fourth, third and second respondents
respectively,
are
quashed.
The
disciplinary authority is directed to
conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage
when the petitioner was denied the
opportunity. The fresh enquiry may be
concluded expeditiously.
20. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
21. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 31663 of 2009
Suresh Chandra Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Upadhyaya
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Yadav, Sri Chandra
Narayan Tripathi
622
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Intereston 2 years delay in release of post reitiral
benefits-cause of delay unexplained -
held-entitled for interest @ 6% per
annum-with liberty to recover the same
from erring officer.
Held: Para-15
In view of the above, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is
entitled for interest on the delayed payment
of his post retiral benefits @ 6% per annum
from the date of his retirement till the date
of actual payment. The said amount shall be
paid to the petitioner by the second
respondent within four months from the
date of communication of a certified copy of
this order. It is open to the State
Government that after payment of the
amount of interest to the petitioner, as
directed above, it can hold an enquiry to
find out the person who is responsible for
the delay and deduct the amount of interest
from
the
salary/post
retiral
benefits/pension of the officer/official held
responsible for the delay.
Case Law discussed:
2009 (9) ADJ 154; Writ-A No. 16146 of 2012;
AIR 1985 SC 356; (1992) 1 UPLBEC 674.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. The petitioner is a retired
Headmaster of a Junior High School,
which is run by the Basic Shiksha
Parishad, Uttar Pradesh and the salary of
the teachers of the said institution is paid
from the State exchequer.
2. The petitioner seeks a direction
ordering the respondents to release the
amount of interest on the delayed
payment of his post retiral benefits.
3.
The facts are: the petitioner was
initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher;
later on he was promoted on the post of
Headmaster; and, he retired reaching the age
of superannuation on 30th June, 2006. The
petitioner claims that the State has given him
award of best teacher. After the retirement of
the petitioner, his post retiral benefits have
been paid to him on 11th June, 2008. The
petitioner has averred in paragraph-13 of the
writ petition that he received a bankers
cheque for a sum of Rs.2,68,537/- issued by
the Allahabad Bank on 11th June, 2008.
4.
The grievance of the petitioner is
that admittedly, his post retiral benefits have
been paid to him after lapse of a period of
two years from the date of his retirement but
no interest has been paid on the delayed
payment. For payment of interest on the
delayed payment, the petitioner has made a
representation dated 11th November, 2008,
which has been received in the office of the
second respondent, but no order has been
passed thereon.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the second and third
respondents wherein it is clearly admitted
that there was a delay in payment of post
retiral benefits of the petitioner. Such
admission has been made in paragraphs14 and 19 of the counter affidavit, which
are extracted herein-below:
"14. That the contents of paragraph 3
of the writ petition are incorrect as stated
hence denied and in reply thereto it is
submitted that the petitioner has already
been paid all the retiral dues, however the
said payment has been made on account
of the implementation of 6th Pay
Commission Report as result thereof
some delay has been caused which was
neither intent full of deliberate. The all
payments have been made to the
petitioner including the arrears but some
delay has been made due to paucity of the
2 All] Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
623
budget, therefore the petitioner is not
entitled for any interest against the alleged
amount stated by the petitioner.
19. That the contents of paragraphs 10,
11 & 12 of the writ petition are subject
matter of record which can be examined by
this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing of
the writ petition. However it is submitted that
since the petitioner has already been paid all
the retiral dues but some delay has been
caused due to implementation of the 6th Pay
Commission Report and paucity of budget,
therefore, the implication cited by the
petitioner by means of the judgment is not
applicable in the present case."
6. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that admittedly there is a delay
in payment of post retiral benefits of the
petitioner, therefore, the respondents are
liable to pay interest. He has placed reliance
on the judgments of this Court in Suresh
Chandra Rai v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.,
Lucknow and others, 2009 (9) ADJ 154, and
Panna Lal v. State of U.P. and another, WritA No. 16146 of 2012, decided on 02nd
April, 2012.
8. Learned Standing Counsel
submits that after the implementation of
the report of the VIth Pay Commission
some delay has been caused in making
payment but the payment has already
been made to the petitioner.
9. I have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner retired
as a Headmaster on 30th June, 2006 and
payment of his post retiral benefits were
made
on
11th
June,
2008.
The
respondents have admitted in the counter
affidavit that there was delay in payment
of post retiral benefits of the petitioner.
11. In Panna Lal (supra) this Court
has observed as under:
"A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Wig Brothers (Builders &
Engineers) (P) Ltd. & another vs. Union
of India & others; reported in (2003) 3
Company Law Journal, 328 (Alld.) has
explained that payment of interest is a
necessary corollary to the retention of
amount.
It
is
neither
penal
nor
compensatory in nature. In view of the
aforesaid, the right of the petitioner to
claim interest on the delayed payment
accrues and it has to be adjudicated by
respondent no. 1 (The State of U.P.
through its Secretary, Higher Education,
Lucknow), at the first instance.
Accordingly the present writ petition
is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to make a representation ventilating all his
grievances before respondent no. 1,
within two weeks from today, along with
a certified copy of this order. On such a
representation being made the respondent
no. 1 shall call for the records and shall
pass a reasoned speaking order preferably
within
eight
weeks
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to respondent no.
2. The respondent no. 1 shall determine as
to who is responsible for the delay. The
interest shall be recovered from the
person concerned immediately thereafter
and paid to the petitioner."
12. The Supreme Court in the case
of State of Kerala and others v. M.
Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356,
has laid down the law that in case of delay
624
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in payment of post retiral benefits, the
employee shall be entitled for the interest
on the delayed payment.
13. This Court way back in the year
1992 in the case of Mukti Nath Rai v.
State of U.P. and others, (1992) 1
UPLBEC 674, has issued a general
mandamus in the following terms:
"10. I, therefore, direct that henceforth
Rules 906 to 960 of the Civil Service
Regulations be followed strictly by all
concerned officials, and payment of pension
must begin promptly on the retirement of the
U.P. Government employee. This mandamus
must be strictly complied with, and all those
responsible for its violation, whether in the
parent department of the retiring employee or
in the Accountant General's office, shall be
held accountable of this court for such
violation."
14. It is pertinent to mention that after
the judgment of this Court in Mukti Nath
Rai (supra), the State Government has
framed the Uttar Pradesh Pension Cases
(Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of
Delay) Rules, 1995 (for short, the "Rules,
1995"), providing detailed procedure with
regard to sanction of pension. As defined
under Rule 2(b) and 2(k) of the said Rules, a
specific Time-Schedule has been provided
to be followed and complied with at each
and every stage. In the said time-schedule,
the description of work, time within which
work is to be done and the person
responsible for the work have specifically
been mentioned in Columns-2, 3 and 4
respectively thereof. Under Rule-4 of the
Rules, 1995, procedure for implementation
of the time schedule and allied matters has
been provided. It is apposite to reproduce
Rule-4 of the Rules, 1995, as under:
"4. Procedure for implementation of
the time schedule and allied matters.--(1)
A delay may be ascertained by the Nodal
Officer/ Chief Nodal Officer:
(a) from the complaint of the
Pensioner/Pensioner's Organization;
(b) from the follow up of the disposal
of pension cases.
(2) Whenever any delay comes to
notice of the Nodal Officer/ Chief Nodal
Officer, he shall require the Head of the
Department/the Head of the Office to
furnish all relevant informations in
respect of the reasons for delay and, after
such enquiry as he considers proper, find
out the person responsible for the delay
and send a proposal to the disciplinary
authority
concerned
for
disciplinary
proceeding against him. The Nodal
Officer/Chief Nodal Officer shall follow
up the matter till the completion of the
disciplinary proceeding and maintain
record of such proceeding. The Nodal
Officer shall intimate to the Chief Nodal
Officer in respect of the result of such
disciplinary proceeding.
(3) A person, who fails to furnish
required
information
to
the
Nodal
Officer/Chief Nodal Officer in respect of
retirement of an employee or in respect of
any other matter relating thereto, or who
is responsible for delay, shall be guilty of
misconduct and be punishable under the
punishment rules applicable to him.
(4) Duly completed pension papers
alongwith all relevant documents shall be
sent to the pension sanctioning authority
within the time schedule specified in the
schedule in respect thereof.
(5) The Chief Nodal Officer/Nodal
Officer and the pension sanctioning
2 All] Sri Surendra Prasad Dixit & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
625
authority shall ensure arrangement for
disposal of pension matters within the
time schedule.
(6) The pension sanctioning authority
shall hold or cause to be held regular
monthly meeting of officers/officials, who
deal such matters, and shall take all
appropriate steps for examination and
disposal of such matters.
(7) The Principal Secretary or
Secretary, as the case may be, to the
Government in the Department concerned
shall supervise the work of the Head of
the Department/Head of the Office in
relation to all pension matters within the
time schedule."
15. In view of the above, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner is
entitled for interest on the delayed
payment of his post retiral benefits @ 6%
per annum from the date of his retirement
till the date of actual payment. The said
amount shall be paid to the petitioner by
the second respondent within four months
from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this order. It is open to
the State Government that after payment
of the amount of interest to the petitioner,
as directed above, it can hold an enquiry
to find out the person who is responsible
for the delay and deduct the amount of
interest from the salary/post retiral
benefits/pension of the officer/official
held responsible for the delay.
16. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
17. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 32284 of 2011
Sri Surendra Prasad Dixit & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar (Sharma)
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Claim of
promotional pay-based upon G.O. Dated
03.09.2001-throughout service carrier they
got only one promotion-after completely 24
years
service
entitled
for
second
promotional pay of Rs. 5000-8000.
Held: Para-21 & 24
21. The fact of the case of Ram Chandra
Verma, which has been affirmed in the
Special Appeal, is applicable to the case
in hand. In the present case also, the
petitioners
were
granted
only
one
promotion although their designation
was changed as a Senior Assistant but
they remained in the same pay scale of
Rs.4500-7000. They were granted only
one promotion. The second promotion of
the petitioners in pay scale of Rs.50008000 was denied although they were
entitled for the same in terms of
paragraph no.2-A of the Government
Order dated 3.9.2001.
24. After careful consideration, I am of
the view that the petitioners are entitled
to benefit of Ram Chandra Verma's
judgment which has been affirmed in
appeal and for the law laid-down in the
above judgment. The impugned orders
dated
1.4.2011
passed
by
the
respondent no.2 (Annexure-8 to the writ
petition) and 14.3.2011 passed by the
respondent no. 4( Annexure-9 to the writ