# Yogendra Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-20
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yogendra-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43769
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Service Law - Retiral Benefits - Nature of Rights - Pension, Gratuity, Family Pension, Leave Encashment
and GPF not bounty but vested rights; constitute "property":
Held, retiral dues are valuable statutory rights; employee earns them by long, unblemished service. Pension
constitutes "property" within meaning of Art. 300-A.

Delay in Settlement of Retiral Benefits - Liability to Pay Interest:
Delay of more than three years eight months in release of gratuity and other dues; petitioners entitled to
interest for culpable delay.

U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995 - Statutory Duty
- Time Schedule - Accountability - Misconduct:
Rules impose obligation to initiate pension processing eight months before retirement; Nodal Officer to
identify cause of delay; erring officials liable for disciplinary action; delay amounts to misconduct.

Assured Career Progression (ACP) - Object and Scope - Sanction Must Be Timely - Delay Defeats Scheme:
ACP intended to avoid stagnation; delay in sanction defeats object; sanction after death of employee
deprecated.

Administrative Negligence - Non-maintenance of Records - Passing of Responsibility - Effect:
Failure to maintain GPF passbook, respond to Accountant General and comply with Director's order shows
clear administrative lapse and culpable delay.

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A - Entitlement to Interest:
Even absent statutory rule, interest permissible under constitutional mandate; deprivation of pension without
authority violates Art. 300-A; arbitrary delay violates Arts. 14, 19 & 21.

Directions - Interest and Payment - Recovery from Responsible Officials:
Simple interest @ 9% directed from one month after death till actual payment; GPF to be paid within one
month with same interest; State may recover interest from delinquent officials and initiate action under Rules,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,583 of 46,769. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39583 for what follows._

5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1215
8. As a result of the interim order dated 10.12.2015, only the names of the Regional
Inspectors are being considered for promotion to the post of A.R.T.O. The petitioners contend that
they are not covered by the dispute raised by Passenger Tax Officer in Writ Petition No. 1802 of
2015 but are not being considered for promotion. Consequently, the present writ petition.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the State
Government has further amended Rule 5 of the U.P. Transport Services Rules, 1990 by 5th
Amendment Rules, 2016 on 11.04.2016, whereby the 49% promotion from Passenger/Goods Tax
Officers and Regional Inspectors (Technical) has further been bifurcated, namely, 24% would be
filled up by promotion from substantively appointed Passenger/Goods Tax Officers and 25% by
promotion through the Commission from amongst the substantively appointed Regional Inspectors
(Technical).

10. In the light of this amendment, we see no justification in interfering with the process of
promotion of Regional Inspectors(Technical) being considered to the extent of their quota for the
post of A.R.T.O.

11. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, their post for A.R.T.O. is confined to 24% by
promotion under the amended Rules dated 11.04.2016. Their claim is not being considered on
account of the interim order dated 10.12.2015 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.1802 of 2015,Vijay Kishore Anand And Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., even
though, there is specific final direction of the Writ Court in Writ Petition No. 60158 of 2014.

12. In our opinion judicial discipline restrains us from clarifying any order of the
coordinate Bench of this court. We are of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners
is to move an appropriate application for clarification and/or for further orders in Writ Petition No.
1802 of 2015 and for modification of the order dated 10.12.2015.

13. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH BAGHEL, J.

Writ A No.- 23639 Of 2016

Yogendra Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
1216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Smt Alpana Tiwari, Vinay Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service Law - Retiral Benefits - Nature of Rights - Pension, Gratuity, Family Pension, Leave Encashment
and GPF not bounty but vested rights; constitute "property":
Held, retiral dues are valuable statutory rights; employee earns them by long, unblemished service. Pension
constitutes "property" within meaning of Art. 300-A.

Delay in Settlement of Retiral Benefits - Liability to Pay Interest:
Delay of more than three years eight months in release of gratuity and other dues; petitioners entitled to
interest for culpable delay.

U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995 - Statutory Duty
- Time Schedule - Accountability - Misconduct:
Rules impose obligation to initiate pension processing eight months before retirement; Nodal Officer to
identify cause of delay; erring officials liable for disciplinary action; delay amounts to misconduct.

Assured Career Progression (ACP) - Object and Scope - Sanction Must Be Timely - Delay Defeats Scheme:
ACP intended to avoid stagnation; delay in sanction defeats object; sanction after death of employee
deprecated.

Administrative Negligence - Non-maintenance of Records - Passing of Responsibility - Effect:
Failure to maintain GPF passbook, respond to Accountant General and comply with Director's order shows
clear administrative lapse and culpable delay.

Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A - Entitlement to Interest:
Even absent statutory rule, interest permissible under constitutional mandate; deprivation of pension without
authority violates Art. 300-A; arbitrary delay violates Arts. 14, 19 & 21.

Directions - Interest and Payment - Recovery from Responsible Officials:
Simple interest @ 9% directed from one month after death till actual payment; GPF to be paid within one
month with same interest; State may recover interest from delinquent officials and initiate action under Rules,
1995.

In Result:
Writ petition allowed; no costs.

List of Cases cited:

1. State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri, (1974) 4 SCC 308
2. State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356
3. D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894
4. State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210
5. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305
6. Gorakhpur University v. Shitla Prasad Nagendra (Dr.), (2001) 6 SCC 591
7. Uma Agrawal (Dr.) v. State of U.P., (1999) 3 SCC 438
8. S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44
9. Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 687
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1217
10. Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8
11. R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 110
12. R.R. Bhanot v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 406
13. Chandrajeet Kaur (Smt.) v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 1
14. Pradumal Kr. Jain v. Union of India, 1994 Suppl. 2 SCC 548
15. Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 3 SCC 472
16. Deo Dutta v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725
17. State of U.P. v. Gulab Shankar Srivastava, (2005) 9 SCC 682
18. Union of India v. P.N. Natrajan, (2010) 12 SCC 405

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.)

1. The petitioners have instituted this writ proceeding for a direction upon the concerned
respondent for payment of 9% interest on delayed payment of amount of Gratuity, Family Pension,
and Leave Encashment and also for payment of amount of G.P.F.

2. The petitioners claim that they are son and daughters of one Late Sri Krishan Chaudhary,
who was Assistant Development Officer in the Department of the Social Welfare. Their father
unfortunately died on 05.10.2011 while in harness.

3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

4. Late Krishan Chaudhary was an employee of the Social Welfare Department. While he
was serving on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Social Welfare) at Block Moth, District
Jhansi, he unfortunately died on 05.10.2011. He had made all the petitioners as his nominee for
receiving his retiral benefits. A copy of the nomination is on the record. The petitioners have made
a representation dated 17.10.2011 before the respondent no. 6 with the requisite documents for the
payment of post retiral-cum-death benefits of his father. The petitioners have submitted another
representation dated 24.10.2011 for giving the benefit of Assured Career Progression as their father
had completed more than 26 years of service. Both the representations are on record. In the
representations, it is stated that due to non-fixation of salary of his father in terms of the various
Government Orders issued from time to time in respect of sanction of the Assured Career
Progression, the family pension, leave encashment and other benefits are adversely affected. They
have also moved an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking
reasons regarding non-fixation of family pension and other post retiral benefits.

5. Pursuant to the said application under the RTI, the Director, Social Welfare, U.P., the
respondent no.2, sent a communication dated 14.11.2014 to the Deputy Director, Social Welfare,
Divisional Office, Jhansi, respondent no.4, and Senior Assistant at Headquarter for the payment of
retiral benefits of the petitioners' father by end of November, 2014. He has also directed that on
01.12.2014, the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and the concerned officers of the
Directorate shall be present in his office along with records. A further direction was issued to the
Deputy Director to fix the responsibility of the concerned official for delay and negligence.
1218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. It is stated that the petitioners have also submitted a fresh representation dated
30.03.2015 for sanction of benefit of Assured Career Progression to their father. It is stated that the
petitioners further submitted a representation dated 15.05.2015, which has been received in the
office of the District Social Welfare Officer on 20.05.2015, and which bears the endorsement of
receiving of the concerned officer. Similar representation was also made to the Accountant
General, New Delhi under the registered cover.

7. From the record, it appears that the gratuity and pension was paid to the petitioners on
25.06.2015 after a lapse of three years eight months. The petitioners made a fresh representation on
04.12.2015 for the interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 9%.

8. The Office of the Accountant General, Allahabad on 08.09.2015 sent a communication
to the District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi reminding him to send the pass book of Late Krishan
Chaudhary, as the certified Photo copy of the pass book was not sent by him to the office of the
Accountant General in spite of the earlier communication dated 06.02.2015. Thus, a reminder was
sent.

9. The Director, Social Welfare on 28.05.2015 granted the third Assured Career
Progression to eight officials along with the father of the petitioner, who have completed 26 years
satisfactory service in terms of the Government Order dated 05.11.2014. The father of the
petitioners was granted the next Pay Band of Rs.15600-39100 plus grade pay of Rs.5400/- on
30.04.2010.

10. On 25.06.2015, the Additional Director (Treasury and Pension), Jhansi sent a
communication to the Treasury Officer, Jhansi, by which the gratuity amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
was sanctioned and the Treasury Officer, Jhansi was directed to make payment of the said amount
to the petitioners.

11. The grievance of the petitioners is that due to the delay in the payment of the post
retiral benefits, the petitioners had to live in indigent circumstances as they have no other source of
livelihood and they were totally dependent on the salary of their father, now after his untimely
death, on his retiral benefits.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Parties are not in
conflict on the facts, therefore, with their consent the matter is taken on board for final disposal in
terms of the Rules of the Court.

13. It is a common ground that the petitioners are nominee of Late Krishan Chaudhary,
who died on 05.10.2011 while in harness. They have submitted their succession certificate and
other relevant documents without any loss of time.

14. From the record, it emerges that the petitioners have moved several representations and
reminders repeatedly. On their representations, the Director, Social Welfare had passed an order for
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1219
immediate payment of post retiral benefits of their late father and also issued a direction to the
concerned officials on 14.11.2014 that in any case by end of November, 2014, his post retiral
benefits be paid. He had also issued a direction to the District Social Welfare Officer that he shall
be present on 01.12.2014 in his office along with the record to explain the reasons relating to those
payments which have not been paid by the said date. He has also directed the Deputy Director,
Social Welfare to fix the responsibility of the concerned official for delay. It appears that the said
direction of the Director had no effect on his subordinate officials as in spite of the said strongly
worded order, the payment was made only on 25.06.2015 without any interest on delayed payment.
The grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for the interest at the rate of 9% on the
delayed payment.

15. It is worthwhile to mention that the Director, Social Welfare has sanctioned the third
benefit of Assured Career Progression to the petitioners' father in the year 2015 i.e. on 25.06.2015
after more than four years of the death of the employee. Under the Scheme of Assured Progression
Scheme it is obligatory on the part of respondents to grant A.C.P. in terms of various Government
Orders within the reasonable time. The main object of the Scheme is to avoid stagnation in the
career of the employees, where there is no prospect of the promotion. The culpable delay in
sanctioning the grant defeats the very purpose of the scheme.

16. From the perusal of the Assured Career Progression Scheme, it is evident that it does
not require any adjudication of the scheme. The only thing which is required to be ascertained
before grant of the said benefit is about the period of satisfactory service rendered by the employee.

17. The Government Orders issued from time to time clearly indicate that a duty is cast
upon the competent offical to sanction the Assured Career Progression on its own.

18. The record also indicates that the GPF pass book of Late Krishan Chaudhary has not
been properly maintained by the department and in spite of the communication from the office of
the Accountant General, copy of the pass book of Late Krishan Chaudhary was not promptly sent,
as noted above. A copy of the communication reminding the authority concerned to send the pass
book is on record.

19. From the aforesaid facts, the delay and caused in making the delay is self-evident and
need no elaboration. In any view of the matter, the petitioners have received the post retiral cumdeath benefits except GPF, after lapse of more than three years.

20. For convenience ,it is apt to refer statutory provisions / rules before considering the
issue at hand. The State Government, in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution, has made the U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance
of Delay) Rules, 1995 (In short the Rules 1995), in which Rule-2 defines the various officers and
Rule-3 provides overriding effect of the rule notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
any other rules. Rule-4 lays-down the procedure for implementation of the time schedule and allied
matter. It further enjoins that the Nodal Officer shall ascertain cause of the delay on a complaint
1220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the beneficiary. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 says that whenever any delay comes to the notice of
the Nodal Officer, he shall require the Head of the Department to furnish all relevant information in
respect of the cause of delay and he will also direct to hold an enquiry to find out the person
responsible for delay. For the convenience, sub-rule (2) of Rule-4 of the Rules, 1995 is extracted
herein below:-

"(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
information 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."

21. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 provides that the person, who fails to furnish the information or
who is responsible for delay, shall be guilty of misconduct. Sub-rule (3) of Rule-4 reads as under:-

" Sub-rule (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."

22. Sub-rule (4) of Rule-4 of Rules 1995 provides that duly completed pension papers
along with all relevant documents shall be sent to the pension sanctioning authority within the time
schedule specified in the schedule.

23. Sub-rule (6) of Rule-4 of the Rules 1995 enjoins that the pension sanctioning authority
shall hold a regular monthly meeting of officers/officials who deal such matters and shall take all
appropriate steps for examination and disposal of such matters.

24. Sub-rule (7) of Rule-4 of the Rules 1995 empowers the Principal Secretary or
Secretary, as the case may be, to the Government in the Department concerned to supervise the
work of Head of the Department/Head of the Office in relation to all pension matters within the
time schedule.

25. The time schedule has been framed and specified under Rule 3(b) and 3(k). In the said
time schedule description of work, time within which work is to be done and person responsible for
the work have been laid-down in a tabular form. The some of the relevant and material entries of
the time-schedule are quoted herein below:-

Sl.
No.
Description of work
Time
within
which
work is to be done
Persons
responsible
for
the
work.
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1221
1
Completion
and
verification
of
service
book.
Month of June every
year.
1.Concerned clerk of concerned
establishment of the department.
2.Office Superintendent. 3. Head
of Office.
2
Review of service book and
completion of deficiency, if
any.
08
months
before
retirement.
1.Concerned
establishment
clerk. 2. Office Superintendent.
3. Head Office.
3
Issue
of
'No
dues
Certificate'
(In
service
period).
Two
months
before
retirement.
Head of office.
4
(a) providing of pension
form to retiring official. (b)
Filling of Pension Form.
08
months
before
retirement. 06 months
before retirement.
Head
of
Office.
Retiring
Government Servant.
5
Completion of forms in
death cases.
One month after death.
1. Pension clerk. 2. Office
Superintendent.
3.
Head
of
Office.
6
Enquiries
from
the
Appointing Authority as to
whether any departmental
proceeding
is
under
consideration or not.
08
months
before
retirement.
1. Office Superintendent. 2.
Head of Office.
7
Supply
of
above
information
by
the
Appointing Authority.
07
months
before
retirement.
Appointing Authority.
8
Forwarding
of
pension
papers. (a)Service Pension
(b)Family Pension.
Five
months
before
retirement. One month
after death.
Head
of
Office/Head
of
Department.
Head
of
Office/Head of Department.
9
Examination and scrutiny
of pension papers etc. and
writing to the department,
if there is any objection or
shortcoming
to
remove
that.
Two months of receipt
of pension papers.
1.
Accountant.
2.Assistant
Accounts Officer. 3. Pension
Payment Order issuing Officer
10
Removing of objection.
One
month
after
receiving the objection.
Departmental Head of Office.
11
Re-examination/
disposal
pension case. o
One
month
after
receiving the corrected
papers.
1.
Accountant.
2.Assistants
Accounts Officer. 3. Pension
payment Order issuing officer.
12
Forwarding of No dues
Certificate on Form-2 for
release
of
withheld
gratuity.
Two
months
after
retirement.
Head of Office.
1222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13
Issue
of
Payment
Order(Pension/
Gratuity/Commutati on of
pension).
Upto or on the eve of
retirement.
1.
Accountant.
2.Assistant
Accounts Officer. 3. Pension
payment Order issuing Officer.

26. A careful reading of the scheme of the Rules 1995, clearly indicates the intention of the
rule making authority that the process for the payment of pension should be initiated eight months
before the retirement and in any event the issue of payment order (Pension/Gratuity/Commutation
of Pension) should be made on the eve of retirement of the employee.

27. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India, has made Uttar Pradesh Liberalization Pension Rules, 1961 which
provides that the amount of pension admissible under Article 474 or 474-A of the Civil Service
Regulation remains the same. It provided that on retirement of a Government servant, he will get
the gratuity instead of the Government contribution to the Contributory Provident Pension Fund.

28. It is common experience that a large number of writ petitions are filed by the retired
officials/employees in this Court for a direction for payment of their post retiral benefits. The
Rules, 1995 clearly provides that responsibility should be fixed by the Nodal Officer for delayed
payment. The Rules, 1995 further provides that if any delay is caused due to negligence of the
officials or the employee, he shall be held guilty of misconduct and will be punished accordingly.

29. The Supreme in case of State of Mysore v. C.R. She shadri, (1974) 4 SCC 308,
Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the court aptly observed, thus:

"A retired government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits.
And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public
servant- not unusual in government - we direct the appellant to consider promptly the claim of
the petitioner in the light of our directions and make payment of what is his due - if so found -
on or before April 15, 1974. The government's inexplicable indifference in not placing before the
Court the relevant rule regarding promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary merits the order that
the appellant pay the costs of the petitioner/first respondent, for the wages of winner's sloth is
denial of costs, and something more."

30. The court again considered the same issue in State of Kerala and others v. M.
Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356, wherein the Court had the occasion to consider the effect
and consequences of delay in payment of the retiral benefits of the retired employee. In the said
case, the Court held that if a delay occurs, the employee shall be entitled for the interest on the
delayed payment. The Supreme court made the following observation:

"1. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be dis tributed by the
Government to its employees on their retire ment but have become, under the decisions of this
Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1223
disbursement thereof must be visit ed with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market
rate till actual payment.

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 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 -emphasized and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest
on these dues at the cur rent market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the
date of retirement."

31. The Supreme Court as well as this Court in an unbroken line of the decisions has
consistently held that the employees are entitled for interest on the delayed payment.

32. It is a matter of regret that the law laid-down by the Supreme Court, which is binding
on all the authorities, tribunals under Article 141 of the Constitution has been ignored with
impunity by the officials of the State Government. They have also ignored the Statutory Rules,
1995, which requires that payment of the post retiral benefits including the gratuity etc. should be
paid on the eve of the retirement of the employee.

33. The Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari V. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam
Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, has quoted the judgment of State of Kerala V. M. Padmanabhan Nair
(supra) with approval. The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:-

"4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition vide order dated
25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity
and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months
without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. The High Court has adverted to the
judgments of this Court particularly, in State of Kerala V. M. Padmanabhan Nair, wherein this
Court reiterated its earlier view holding that:

'1. [the] 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 decision 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 to the employees.'
1224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good insofar as
awarding the interest on the Delayed payments to the appellant is concerned."

34. In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC
210, the Supreme Court has held that the pension is a hard earned benefit and is 'property' as per the
provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Court has held that pension and
gratuity are not the bounties and the employee earns these benefits by his hard work, continuous,
faithful and unblemished service. The Court has relied on the judgment rendered in D.S. Nakara v.
Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. The relevant part of the judgment in Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava (supra) is quoted as under:-

 "It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the
nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law
as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India."

35. The Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University v. Shitla Prasad Nagendra
(Dr.), (2001) 6 SCC 591, has held that any delay in settlement and disbursement of pension should
be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest.
Paragraph no.5 of the judgment, which is relevant for the purpose, is quoted hereinbelow:-

"5. We have carefully considered the submission on behalf of the respective parties
before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very University, report in S.N. Mathur is that of a
Division Bench, rendered after considering he principles laid down and also placing reliance upon
the decisions of this Court report in R. Kapur which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State
of Kerala V. M. Padmanabhan Nair and Som Prakash. This Court has been repeatedly
emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be
distributed by the Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and
any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with
severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest."

(Emphasis supplied)

36. The Supreme Court has taken the judicial notice of the fact that a spate of the writ
petitions is filed in the Supreme Court and various High Courts seeking a direction for payment of
the retiral benefits. The Supreme Court has also noted that in the State of U.P. several instructions
have been issued for early payment. Paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment rendered in the case of
Uma Agrawal (Dr) v. State of U.P., (1999) 3 SCC 438, which are apposite in this regards, read
thus-

"2. Nowadays, several writ petitions are being filed in this Court and various High
Courts seeking relief for disbursement of retiral benefits, because of inordinate delays in payment
of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in State of Mysore V. C.R. Seshadri-
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1225
'a retired government official is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits.
And to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary expectation of the superannuated public
servant - not unusual in Government.'

It is becoming necessary to issue directions, in several cases, for early payment of
these dues. In yet another case in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair this Court had occasion
to point out (at SCC p. 430, para 2) that 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 the documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the
government departments concerned. It was observed that inasmuch as the date of retirement of
every government servant was very much known in advance, it was difficult to appreciate why the
process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of the above-said two documents
should not be completed well before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount
could be made on the date of retirement or on the following day and the pension, at the expiry of
the following month. This Court stated that the necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues
to a government servant immediately after his retirement could not be overemphasized and it would
not be unreasonable to direct that there would be a liability to pay penal interest on these
retirement benefits. In several cases decided by this Court, interest at the rate of 12% per annum
has been directed to be paid by the State".

"3. As these delays have increased in the last few years, it has become necessary to
refer to the Rules and departmental instructions which do contain adequate provisions for
compilation of all the necessary data and preparation of the necessary documents for disbursement
of retiral benefits well in advance. The present case arises from Uttar Pradesh and we find that the
Government of Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions to the effect that-

'the Head Office, or other authority responsible for preparing the pension papers
should initiate the pension case, two years before retirement of the government servant. At that
stage, the essential information necessary for working out the qualifying service should be
collected, and the entire service book and other service records should be examined and completed
with a view to remove deficiencies and imperfections, if any, in the service-book/ records. This
process should be completed'.

At least eight months in advance of the date of retirement of the government
servant. The actual computation and preparation of the pension papers should then start and-

'any deficiency or imperfection, or omission which still remains in the service
records should be ignored, and the determination of qualifying service should be proceeded with
on the basis of entries in the service records, whatever the degree of imperfection to which it might
have been possible to bring them by that time..... The process of determining the qualifying service
and the average emoluments and the admissible pension and gratuity should be positively
completed within a period of 2 months and the pension papers sent to the Accountant General not
later than 6 months before the date of retirement. The said office is to issue the pension payment
1226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order (including the order for the payment of the death-cum-retirement gratuity) one month in
advance of the date of retirement. ... It should be ensured that the payment of superannuation
pension commences on the first of the month following the month in which the government servant
retires.'

37. In the case of S.K. Dua v. State of Haryana, (2008) 3 SCC 44, at page 47, the Court
has held that even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an
employee can claim interest relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Paragraph no. 14
of the said judgment is quoted hereunder;-

"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 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."

38. In the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 687, the Supreme
Court has held that it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be made on the
date of retirement or soon thereafter. Paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment read as
under:-

"3. In case of an employee retiring after having rendered service, It is expected
that all the payment of the retiral benefits should be paid on the date of retirement or soon
thereafter if for some unforseen circumstances the payments could not be made on the date of
retirement.

4. In this case, there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making the
payments for months together. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the appellant within
12 weeks from today simple interest at the rate of 18 per cent with effect from the date of her
retirement, i.e. 31.08.1997 till the date of payments."

(emphasis supplied)

39. This Court also way back in the year 1983 in the case of Prahlad Singh v. State of
U.P. (All.), 1983 (3) SLR 58 All (DB) has deprecated the conduct of the respondents in paying the
post retiral benefits after inordinate delay. Paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment is relevant, which
is quoted herein below:-
5 All. Yogendra Singh & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1227
"6. The petitioner has rendered valuable service to the State for a period of 31
years. Under the Statutory Rules he was eligible to payment of gratuity and pension within a
reasonable period on his retirement. But he has not been paid even a penny even though a period
of 9 years have expired. The purpose of pension is to grant relief to a Government servant who
retires from Service. Gratuity is in the nature of compensation for valuable service rendered to the
State. The object of providing pensionary benefits is to grant compensation to the Government
servant so that he may not face financial difficulties on his retirement. It is difficult to comprehend
as to how a Government servant can survive and maintain his family in these hard days when his
pension and gratuity is not paid for 9 years after his retirement. We are constrained to observe that
the respondents have acted in a casual manner without having any regard to the public interest. If
Government servants after rendering valuable service to the State are denied payment of pension
and gratuity, there would be demoralization in the service which would certainly, be against the
public interest. The respondents conduct in not paying gratuity and pension is reprehensible and
unjustified. The petitioner has been harassed during all these period for which he is entitled to be
compensated."

40. The principle of law that emanates from the above judgments is that if pension and
other retiral dues are not paid immediately, the employee shall be entitled for the interest.

41. In addition to above, in this State there is already a statutory rule, being Rule 1995, all
the formalities for the payment of pension etc. must be completed strictly in terms of the timeframe provided under the schedule of the Rules, 1995 and the employer cannot take a plea that the
delay was caused due to the fault of the employee. As is evident from the time frame provided
under the Rules, 1995, the employee cannot be blamed for the delay as all the process for
completing the paper formalities are required to be initiated by the department much before the date
of his retirement.

42. Relevant, would it be to mention that the State Government, from time to time has
expressed its helplessness in the matter of the delayed payment. In one of the Government Orders
dated 05.05.1985, the State Government has noted that Lok Ayukta has expressed his displeasure
that large number of complaints have been made to him by the retired employees in respect of the
delayed payment of their retiral benefits. The State Government has also noted the fact that in spite
of the steps taken by the State Government for early disposal of the pension matters, due to the
negligence of the officials, large number of matters of the payment of pension are still pending. The
relevant part of the Government Order is extracted herein below:-

"उपरोक्त डवषय पर मुझे यह कहिे का डिदेश हआ है डक यद्यडप राज्य सरकार अपिे कमगर्ाररयों के
सेवािैवृडिक प्रकरणों को समय से डिस्ताररत करािे की डदशा में सदैव से सजग रही है तथा इस प्रयास में पेंशि संबंिी अिेकों डियमों
एवं व्यवस्थाओं में डशडथलीकरण एवं उदारीकरण भी डकया गया है, तथाडप कदाडर्त अिीिस्थ कायागलयों की उदासीिता के कारण
अभी भी बड़ी संख्या में पेंशि प्रकरण लखम्बत हैं, डजिके कारण संबंडित कमगर्ारी को अत्याडिक आडथगक कडठिाइयों का सामिा करिा
पड़ रहा है। अिेकों पेंशिर अपिी समस्याओं को लेकर लोकायुक्त कायागलय उ0प्र0 लििऊ से डशकायत करते हैं तथा उक्त कायागलय
उि पर तत्परता से कायगवाही करके लखम्बत प्रकरणों को डिस्ताररत करािे का प्रयास करता हैं। परन्तु लोकायुक्त संगठि िे इस आशय
का रोष प्रकर् डकया है डक अिीिस्थ डवभागों से प्रकरण के लखम्बत होिे के कारण जाििे एवं उसे डिस्ताररत करािे के संबंि में भेजे गए
1228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पत्रों का आपके कायागलयों द्वारा उिर िहीं डदया जाता
 है तथा उन्हें लोकायुक्त कायागलय में अडभलेिों सडहत बुलाए जािे पर वे
उपखस्थत िहीं होते है। उपरोक्त खस्थडत ठीक िहीं है। इस संदभग में मुझे यह कहिे का डिदेश हआ है डक -''

43. Regard may be had to the fact that the State Government has also constituted a 'Pension
Adalat' (Pension Court) for expeditious disposal of the pension matter in the year 1996 but the
employees could not get the appropriate relief in the matter. The State Government, hence again
issued an order dated 24.02.2003 recording its dissentment in the following words:-