a? (WZ/ @t Single Bench BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) w.P. (S) No. Mm; of‘zoo’9 / Kripa Shankar Tripathi, aged about 67 years S/o Shri T.N. Tripathi, R/o Nehru Nagar, Near Police Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS / RESPONDENTS : 1‘ State of Chhattisgarhthroughthe Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. §he Direction Department of Agricuiture (Horticulture Ring) Raipur /,Chhattisgarh. 3 Deputy Director, Department of Horticulture Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PETITIONER 4R 1? 133%) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 43 16 of29 00 PETITIONER Kripa Shankar Tripathi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Other. Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on .Z£fa of March, 201 l. 3y @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 43 16 of 2009 Kripa Shankar Tripathi. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Other. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 226 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. (Delivered on.28 f‘dayof March, 201 1) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the date of his retirement i.e. 27.09.2001, till the date of its payment. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner joined the service on 10.11.1960 as Agriculture Extension Officer. The petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture) on 30.09.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation, vide order dated 27.09.2001 (Annexure P/l). According to the petitioner, aner retirement, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent authorities for payment of his retiral dues, but nothing was done. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 2397/2007, Which was disposed of on 18.04.2007 (Annexure P/3) \ r @ directing the respondent N0. 1 therein, to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for payment of his retiral dues within a period of four weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities on 13.09.2007 (Annexure P/4) for payment of gratuity and pension amount. In turn, the respondent No. 2, Vide communication dated 19.09.2007 (Annexure P/5)' intimated to the respondent No. 1 regarding settlement of pension of the petitioner. Thereafter, correspondences took place between the respondent authorities with regard to no-dues and no enquiry certificate of the petitioner. The leave encashment amount was settled Vide letter dated 20.02.2008 and revised pay was settled on 17.04.2008 (Annexure P/9). Lastly, the final settlement order was passed relating to the pension of the petitioner as well as revised pay scale Vide communication dated 05.09.2008 (Annexure P/10). Even after all these exercise, the amount of the retiral dues of the petitioner could not be released. However, after various communications between the respondent authorities, on 19.02.2009, the petitioner received the first cheque of Rs. 96,834/— (Annexure P/13). Again, the respondent No. 3 issued a letter on 06.04.2009 (Annexure P/14) to the respondent No. 3 to send certain certificates with regard to the petitioner. The requisite certificates were sent Vide letter dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure P/15). Thereafter, the petitioner received about Rs. 6,00,000/— towards the final settlement. However, the petitioner was deprived of the interest against the amount which was due to hiin since 27.09.2001. Thus, this petition. 2 3 3. Shri‘ Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the payment of final settlement was delayed on account of the laches of the respondent authorities after the date of retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an interest at the rate of 9% W.e.f. 27.09.2001, till its payment. The petitioner was legally entitled to the said amount which was detained by the respondent authorities without any rhyme or reason when admittedly, no enquiry or recovery proceeding, whatsoever, was t pending against the petitioner. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that since the final settlement has already been made, and under the provisions of law, there is no scheme for grant of interest on delayed payment, this petition is not maintainable. Further, the petitioner has not given the exact details astov under what category, he is claiming interest. There were number of complications which are evident from the correspondences made between the respondent authorities and the representations filed by the petitioner itself. The procedure for finalizing the retiral dues takes time since various certificates viz. no enquiry certificate, no dues certificate are required before making final settlement, and in the course of collecting these certificates, some delay was caused which was bonafide. However, as soon as all clearances were given 'by the departments, the final payment was made. In fact, in the year 2003, the petitioner has written to the respondent authorities that he was not sure asto whether he has submitted an application for payment of leave .\ l @ y encashment. Hence, the delay was on the part of the petitioner itself. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 30.09.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for payment of his retiral dues which could not be done. Thus, the petitioner filed a writ petition, as aforestated, wherein, this Court directed .the respondents to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order on 18.04.2007 in W.P.(S) No. 2397/2007. But even then, nothing could be done. 7. The Supreme Court, in ABL International Ltd. & Another v. Export ” Credit Guarantee Corpn. Ltd. & Others], wherein there was a direction to settle the claim with interest at the rate of 12%. The direction was made in a commercial transaction, not service matters, but under the terms of contract. In case of payment of gratuity there is a clear provision to make payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of sub section (3) and (3A) of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 9. The relevant provision of law in respect of preparation of pension papers and payment thereof, Rule 49 and 57‘ of the Madhya I l (2005) 10.§cc 495 \\ Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for sharl ‘the Rules, 1976 ’), may be referred, which reads as under: “49. Preparation of list of Government servants due for retirement—(1)3 Every Head of the Department/Head of Office shall have a list prepared every six months, that is, on the 1“ January and 13‘ July, each year of all Gazetted and Non-Gazetted Government servants who are due to retire under his order Within the next 24 to 30 months ofthe date. (2) Two copies of every list referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be supplied to the Audit Officer (one for Pension Branch and other for Fund Section) concerned and one copy to the Finance Department not later than the 3 13‘ January Or the 3 l“ July, as the case may be, of that year. (3) In case of a Government servant retiring for reasons other than by way of superannuation, the Head of the Department/Head of Office shall promptly inform the Audit Officer and Finance Department as soon as the impending retirement becomes known to him. (4) Copy of every list referred to in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (3) sh also b sent o the Executive ngineer, Public Works Departent and Public Health ngineering Departm to eble them to check the house rent and water suply dues against h s suc Government servant. XXX XXX XXX . Preparation o peion aprs.— (l) Every Hd o Offic shall undertake he or of preparing pensio papers i Form 6 two years before the dae on which a overnmnt seant is due t retire serannuation, or o e date on 'which he proceeds on leave peparatory to retiremet Whichever is earlier.” On perusal of the bove provisins, it is lear tha the list of a o c t Government servantsIho re due to retire, hve to be prepared W a a every six months i.e. lS‘ January and 13‘ July of each year. The same shall be supplied to the concerne audit officers and the same d shall be settled as eary as possible. The te oncemed officers l ohr c have to be inform in advance to clear te hous rent, water ed h e Isupply dues ’of the said government servant. Rule 57 of the Rules, all e t E m E ent na p 57 f ns pe ea f e t wk n n t Ge rv o on up n th r n “3. In case of an emloee retiring after having rendered service, it i eXpctd that a the payment of the etiral benefits should be paid on the dat of retirement or soon thereaer if for some nforeeen circumstances the paymts could n be made on the date of retirement. . In this case, there is bsoluely no reason or justification for not ming the payments for monts together. e, therefore, respondents to pa to the pellant within 12 weeks from tody simple interes at the rate of 18 per cent with effec from the dae of hr retirement, i.e. , 37 m In th case on hand, tere is dispute tha the petitioner retired e h no t from service as Deput Diretor Horculture n attainn the age y c, ti o ig of superannuation on 30.09.2001. The retiral dues could not be settled, thus, the petitioner approached to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2397/2007. This Court, vide order dated 18.04.2007 (Annexure P/3) after considering the submission of the petitioner as well as Government Chhattisgarh, Department of Agriculture to decide and pass appropriate order on the letter dated 07.02.2007 in accordance with law, on its own merit, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt‘of a copy of the order. Except that in the year 2003, after a period of two years from the date of retirement, as submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner was not sure asto whether he had made any application for leave encashment or not, no other reason has been pointed out by the State for causing delay in payment of retiral dues. The reply is in a vague and casual manner that the Department takes its own time to settle the pensioner benefits, which cannot be held as reasonable ground for delaying the paymentrof pensionary benefits. The respondent authorities the 'respondents, directed the Secretary, , py s ee ll r e ft us en ot 4 at ak h W y ap a t t t e 1—8-199 till the date ofpayents.” @ g have further ignored the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 2397/2007 on 18.04.2007 wherein it was clearly directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass order within a period of four‘weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Ultimately, the first payment of Rs. 96,834/— was made on 19002.2009 and final settlement of retiral dues viz. gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of salary and pension was made, thereafter. 14. Thus, applying the well settled proposition of law to the aforestate'd facts of the case, the State/respondents is liable to'pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date, it became due i.e. from the date of retirement till payment was made. It is ordered accordingly. The State/respondents is further directed to make the payment, as aforestated, within a period of two months from today. 15. As a result, the petition is allowed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 10,000/— payable to the petitioner within a period of two months. Sdf— Satish K. Agnihotri s Judge x Amit L;