HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 228 of 2006 (SS) Om Prakash s/o Late Chotte Lal Outhouse Pilgrim Cottage, Mallital, Nainital .......... Petitioner. Versus 1. Accountant General of Uttaranchal 2. Joint Director of Education, Kumaon Region, Nainital 3. Deputy Director of Education (Secretary) Kumaon Region, Nainital 4. Principal Govt. Girls Inter College, Nainital 5. Uttaranchal Scheduled Caste * Scheduled Tribes Commission ....... Respondents Ms. Prabha Nauniyal, Advocate for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents. Dated: March 1, 2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Ms. Prabha Nauniyal, counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, for the respondents. By the presents writ petition, the petitioner has prayed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all retrial benefits to the petitioner. Briefly stated the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper in Govt. Girls Inter College, Nainital. He retired on 31.1.2005 after superannuation. The petitioner has alleged that he has not been 2 given retiral benefit despite of his representations made on 21.2.2005 and 4.4.2005. The petitioner has submitted that on 21.4.2005, the Principal of the College sent him to the Bank for encashment of five cheques but unfortunately cash amount of Rs.88,391.00 has lost in the way. Fist Information Report to this effect has been lodged in the Police Station. A departmental enquiry was initiated in this case and Head Clerk of the college has been suspended. He filed a writ petition before the High Court and got stay in the matter. However, the lost amount has been deposited collectively by the petitioner, Head Clerk and Principal of the College. The petitioner has submitted that no charge sheet has been filed against him in the departmental enquiry and the respondents have withheld the pensionary benefits on the fabricated and incorrect grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon in 1985 (1) S.C.C. State of Kerala and other Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that pension is a valuable right and property and the petitioner has a right to claim by virtue of the continuous services rendered by him. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below:- “Pension and gratuity are a longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions 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.” 3 The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court has also been followed in JT 1999 (2) SC 359 Dr. Uma Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & another and has held 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. because of inordinate delay in payment of these benefits. As Krishana Iyer J. stated in State of Mysore Vs. C.R. Sheshadri & others (1974(4) S.C.C. 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 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 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. (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 4 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 the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.” In R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (Painting and publication) Income Tax and another, reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 589 The Apex Court after relying the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala Vs. M. Madnanabhan Nair 1985 (1) S.C.C. page 429, has held as under:- “8. In this appeal before us the appellant urges that he would be entitled to18% interest at least in view of judgment of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. M Padmanabhan Nair. Relying on this ruling, it is submitted that there is unjustified culpable delay in issuing the No Demand. Certificate. The Tribunal having held that DCRG cannot be withheld because of the pendency of the claim for damages should have awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum. ........ 10. This court in M. Madmanabhan Nair case has held as under:- 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 decisions 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.” 5 In view of the above, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner within a month after obtaining certified copy of this order. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost. Dated: 1.3.2006 *Dhyani Rajesh Tandon, J.