# U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others v. Smt. Satyabhama Devi

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 272
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-02-17
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.826 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-power-corporation-limited-others-v-smt-satyabhama-devi-42118
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-delay
in payment of Death cum retirement
benefits-means
of
social
supportdirection of compound interest 10 %-
held proper but not to be treated
precedent for another case-Rs. 29000/-
cost awarded for harassment.

Held: Para 8

After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, on perusal of record and for all
the reasons stated above, the Court is of
the view that learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to show its
bonafide for not paying the retiral dues
to the petitioner-respondent in time,
1 All] U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others V. Smt. Satyabhama Devi
273
whereas as per submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner-respondent, it
is evident that the department has
knowingly delayed payment of retiral
dues. There is no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned passed in the writ
petition directing appellant to pay entire
death cum post retiral benefit. However,
so far as compound interest @ 10% from
the due date till the date of actual
payment is concerned, the Court find
that Smt. Satyabhama Devi- widow of
the
deceased
employee
has
been
harassed and made to run from pillar to
post for getting death cum post retiral
benefit which shows inhuman face of the
appellant.
Death
cum
post
retiral
benefits are means of social support and
status of a government employee so that
he may not be thrown on the road after
death of bread earner. In view of this,
we uphold the award of interest @ 10%
as directed by learned Single Judge, but
this direction to pay interest is confined
to the facts and circumstances of this
case only and shall not be treated as a
precedent.

## Text

272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

5. We do not find any force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants. From the order of suspension, it
is apparent that the appellants have been
placed under suspension in contemplation
of enquiry in respect of certain charges of
misconduct. Rule 17 (1) (a) of the Rules
provides that a police officer against whom
an enquiry is contemplated or is proceeding,
may be placed under suspension. However,
in the said order of suspension, in place of
Rule '17 (1) (a)', Rule '17 (1) (b)' has been
mentioned. IIt is well settled legal position
that merely because an order has been made
under a wrong provision of law, it does not
become invalid so long as there is some
other provision of law under which the
order could be validly made. Mere recital of
a wrong provision of law does not have the
effect of invalidating an order which is
otherwise within the power of the authority
making it. (See State of Karnataka Vs.
Muniyalla, AIR 1985 SC 470).

6. In the case in hand, since the
authority, in the order of suspension, in
place of Rule 17 (1) (a), has mentioned Rule
17 (1) (b), the same cannot be said to be
invalid in view of the law laid down in State
of Karnataka Vs. Muniyalla (supra) as for
the reasons given in the impugned order of
suspension, the appellants could be placed
under suspension.

7. It is also well settled legal position
that an officer against whom an enquiry is
contemplated or any proceeding is going
on, can be placed under suspension.

8. We, therefore, do not find any error
in the order of the learned Single Judge.

9.

However,
considering
the
submissions made and direction issued by
the learned Single Judge to complete the
enquiry within a period of three months
subject to cooperation being rendered by the
appellants, it is provided that in the event
the proceeding is not concluded for any
justifiable
ground
despite
cooperation
rendered by the appellants, it would be open
to the respondents to consider to revoke the
order of suspension.

10. With the above order, this appeal
stands finally disposed of.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDED
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA, J.

Special Appeal No.826 of 2006

U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others

...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Satyabhama Devi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi

Constitution of India, Article 226-delay
in payment of Death cum retirement
benefits-means
of
social
supportdirection of compound interest 10 %-
held proper but not to be treated
precedent for another case-Rs. 29000/-
cost awarded for harassment.

Held: Para 8

After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, on perusal of record and for all
the reasons stated above, the Court is of
the view that learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to show its
bonafide for not paying the retiral dues
to the petitioner-respondent in time,
1 All] U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others V. Smt. Satyabhama Devi
273
whereas as per submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner-respondent, it
is evident that the department has
knowingly delayed payment of retiral
dues. There is no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned passed in the writ
petition directing appellant to pay entire
death cum post retiral benefit. However,
so far as compound interest @ 10% from
the due date till the date of actual
payment is concerned, the Court find
that Smt. Satyabhama Devi- widow of
the
deceased
employee
has
been
harassed and made to run from pillar to
post for getting death cum post retiral
benefit which shows inhuman face of the
appellant.
Death
cum
post
retiral
benefits are means of social support and
status of a government employee so that
he may not be thrown on the road after
death of bread earner. In view of this,
we uphold the award of interest @ 10%
as directed by learned Single Judge, but
this direction to pay interest is confined
to the facts and circumstances of this
case only and shall not be treated as a
precedent.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

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

2. This special appeal has been filed
challenging the validity and correctness of
the judgment and order dated 24.5.2006
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
25527 of 2006: Smt. Satyabhama Devi
Vs. State of U.P. & others, by which writ
petition
was
disposed
of
directing
respondents-appellants to pay entire post
retiral benefit along with compound
interest @ 10% from the due date till the
date of actual payment to the respondentpetitioner, preferably within period of
three months from the date of production
of certified copy of the order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner's husband Late K.N. Tiwari,
who was working as Junior Engineer in
U.P. Power Corporation Limited at
Allahabad, expired on 12.3.2001 during
service period. After his death, it was duty
of the respondent authorities to pay full
pension, G.P.F. and time scale to his
widow/respondent, but it appears that due
to arbitrary action of the respondents
these dues were not paid despite her
repeated requests. Thereafter, she moved
a representation dated 2.8.2005 before the
authorities for redressal of her grievances
regarding payment of post retiral and
death benefits. The Managing Director,
U.P.
Power
Corporation
Limited,
Lucknow
by
means
of
his
office
communications dated 20. 1. 2006 and
21.1.2006
directed
the
Executive
Engineer, Power Distribution, to expedite
the payment of pension, G.P.F. and time
scale to the petitioner. When the order of
Managing Director was not acted upon
the petitioner preferred writ petition no.
25527 of 2006: Smt. Satyabhama Devi
Vs. State of U.P. & others which was
disposed of 24.5.2006. Relevant portion
of the order dated 24.5.2006 reads thus:

"In
these
circumstances,
respondents are directed to pay entire
post retiral benefit to her, preferably
within period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of
this order. Needless to say that on total
amount which is due, 10% compound
interest shall be payable from the due
date till the date of actual payment. As
far as gratuity amount is concerned, on
the said amount, statutory interest shall
be payable. It is made clear that 10%
compound interest which has been
directed to be paid, qua the said amount
it is further directed that it would be
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
open to the respondents to recover the
said
amount
from
the
employee
concerned who are eventually held
responsible
for
delay
in
ensuring
payment of retiral dues."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant
has assailed the aforesaid judgment dated
24.5.2006 impugned in the present special
appeal on the ground that direction for
payment of compound interest is incorrect
as it has been passed without appreciating
the conduct of the respondent regarding
completion of certain formalities which
had not been complied with by him. It is
stated
that
for
these
reasons,
the
department is not at fault if payment of
retiral cum death benefits could not be
made to the heirs of the deceased
employee; and that petitioner-respondent
is not the only heir of the deceased
employee there being other heirs also of
deceased
employee,
therefore
the
direction by the writ court for payment of
compound interest @ 10% from the date
it became due to the petitioner-respondent
till the date of its actual payment is liable
to be quashed.

5. In support of his case, learned
counsel for the appellant has relied upon
Annexures- A-1 to A-17 filed along with
an affidavit in support of stay application.
In the affidavit, it has been averred that
petitioner did not complete the requisite
formalities due to which payment of
retiral benefits has been delayed for which
the appellant is not responsible. It is stated
by him that in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it was not possible for the
appellant to make the payment to the
petitioner. It is lastly submitted that
appellant is not much aggrieved by
direction to pay the death cum retiral dues
which the department is liable to pay as
directed by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned order, but aggrieved by the
rate of interest directed to be paid by the
department.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that certain
documents which were required to be
filled up by the petitioner/respondent,
were available with the department itself
and
asking
to
complete
necessary
formalities by the department shows that
the appellant is deliberately delaying
payment of retiral dues to the petitioner
which was to be paid on the death of
deceased employee. The department is,
therefore, wholly responsible for payment
of retiral benefits along with compound
interest @ 10% as directed by learned
Single Judge.

7. Before analysing the facts and
law, we note that the documents filed by
the appellant along with affidavit and
application on which heavy reliance has
been placed by the counsel for the
appellant for shifting the burden upon the
petitioner-opposite parties in the appeal
for extracting the appellant from the
rigours of payment of death cum retiral
dues with interest as directed by the order
impugned in the appeal. On examination
of documents A-1 to A-17 filed along
with the affidavit, it is revealed that all the
aforesaid
documents
are
not
only
irrelevant, but have been issued by the
department after the impugned judgment
and do not help the case of the appellant.
Hence these documents cannot be taken
into
account
for
the
purpose
of
challenging the validity and correctness of
the impugned order as they were not
before the writ court for its consideration.
This feeble attempt of the appellant to
shift his burden on the opposite party is in
1 All] Smt. Aasha Kumari V. State of U.P. and others
275
order to deny payment of interest on
delayed payment of death cum post retiral
dues to the heirs of the deceased
employee.

8. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, on perusal of record and for
all the reasons stated above, the Court is
of the view that learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to show its
bonafide for not paying the retiral dues to
the petitioner-respondent in time, whereas
as per submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner-respondent, it is evident that
the department has knowingly delayed
payment of retiral dues. There is no
illegality or infirmity in the order
impugned passed in the writ petition
directing appellant to pay entire death
cum post retiral benefit. However, so far
as compound interest @ 10% from the
due date till the date of actual payment is
concerned, the Court find that Smt.
Satyabhama Devi- widow of the deceased
employee has been harassed and made to
run from pillar to post for getting death
cum post retiral benefit which shows
inhuman face of the appellant. Death cum
post retiral benefits are means of social
support and status of a government
employee so that he may not be thrown on
the road after death of bread earner. In
view of this, we uphold the award of
interest @ 10% as directed by learned
Single Judge, but this direction to pay
interest is confined to the facts and
circumstances of this case only and shall
not be treated as a precedent.

9.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed with costs of
Rs.20,000/- on the appellant which is to
be paid within a period of one month from
today.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Special Appeal No. - 1574 of 2008

Smt. Aasha Kumari

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jai Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Change
of Designation from sweeper to DaiC.M.O. Considering her experience as
Dai-sought guidelines from Director-who
taken
view
in
absence
of
Rule,
Regulation or G.O.-designation can not
be changed-Single Judge rightly declined
to interfere-appellant based her claim for
allotment of work of Dai as both sweeper
as well as Dai are group 'D' postmisconceived-appeal dismissed.

Held: Para 12

The appointments are strictly adhered
according
to
the
sanctioned
post.
Therefore, the Director General in his
order dated 21.8.2008 in this regard has
rightly observed that in absence of any
Rule or Regulation or Government Order
neither the post of designation can be
changed nor the service record could be
corrected by making any entry in this
regard. Once the order of the Director
General dated 21.8.2008 is upheld by us,
the consequential order dated 25.8.2008
passed
by
the
Chief
Medical
Superintendent
(Female)
Hospital
at
Agra would also be upheld. The appellant
has utterly failed to establish that her
designation could have been changed in