IN THE HIGH CORUT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. WRIT PETITION NO. 1927 of 2005 (S/S) Andrew Singh R/o Julian Villa Pokharkhali, Almora ………………. Petitioner. Vs. 1. District Education Officer, Almora 2. Manager, Ramsay Inter College, Almora 3. Principal, Ramsay Inter College Almora. ……………….. Respondents December 21,2005 Sri K.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the State. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hanendra Belwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Both the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be disposed of at the admission stage. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pension and all other post retiremental benefits viz. gratuity, insurance money etc. along with the interest to the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was serving as Class IV employee in Ramsy Inter College, Almora and the said institution was running under the management of Methodist Church of India, whose present manage is Rev. Rajeev E. Massey. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has discharged his duties and after completion of age of superannuation, he retired form the post of Orderly in July 2001. From the record, it appears that a suit for eviction before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora being Suit No. 1 of 2002 –Methodist Church of India through its power of attorney Rev. Rajeev E Messey, District Methodist Church, Almora Vs. Shri Andrews Singh, Retd. Orderly,, Julian Villa, Almora was filed and the said suit was dismissed on 27.12.2005 as not pressed as will appear form the following: “27.12.05 iqdkj dj oknh e; vf/koDrk mifLFkr A oknh dh vksj ls vkns”k i= ukWV izsl vafdr fd;k x;k gS A oknh vc okn dks ugha pykuk pkgrk gSA oknh dk fVIiMh ds vk/kkj ij okn esa cy u fn;s tkus ds dkj.k okn [kfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh nkf[ky nQrj gksa** A perusal of the Annexure 7 to the writ petition shows that the District Education Officer, Almora in his letter dated 26.06.2004 has addressed to the Principle, Ramsay Inter College, Almora for releasing the family pension, etc, but the said pension has not yet been released. 4. So far as withholding the pension and retirement benefits are concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court that pension and other retrial benefits being not bounty and the respondents have to pay the same. It has been held in State of Kerala and others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair reported in(1985) 1 SCC 430: “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 he expiry of two months fro the date of retirement.” The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and another (JT 1999 (2) SC 359) observed as under: “Now-a-days, several writ petitions are being filed in this Court and various High Courts seeking relief for disbursement of retrial benefits, become of inordinate delays in payment of these benefits. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated, in State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri & others [1974(4) SCC 308], ‘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 unusal 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 and others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429], this court had occasion to point out that usually’ the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the L.P.C. (last pay certificate) form the concerned departments’ but both the documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned government departments. It was observed that in as much as the date of retirement of every government servant was very much known in advance, it was difficult to appreciate whey the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of the above said two documents should not be competed 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 over emphasized 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 Could interest @ 12% per annum has been directed to be paid by the State.” 5. In view of the above law laid down by the apex Court, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for releasing the family pension and other retrial benefits to the petitioners within a period of two months. If the same is not released within two months form date of filing certified copy of this order, and in case of default the respondents will be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum till the payment is made. 6. The petitioner shall make fresh representation along with copy of the order passed by this Court and the same shall be disposed of within a period of two months as stated above. 7. The petition is disposed for accordingly. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 21.12.2005 A