IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6740 of 2001 Rameshwar Prasad Mali ……Petitioner. Versus State of U.P. and others. …Respondents. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 17th June, 2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Beena Pande, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 2. The total apathy of the State Authorities in granting post-retirement benefits is writ large on the facts of the present petition. The petitioner was a Class IV employee (Mali) in the Horticulture Department and was working in the office of District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun in the year 1992, when he requested for voluntary retirement under the Scheme of the Government. The fact that such a scheme was in existence at the relevant time has not been denied by any of the respondents. As per the Scheme, voluntary retirement can be procured after twenty years of service or 45 years of age. According to the petitioner, he joined service in the District Horticulture Department on Class IV on 1.6.1972 and he requested for voluntary retirement vide his application addressed to the District Horticulture Officer, Dehradun dated 8.5.1992, which was allowed by the District Horticulture Officer on 24.7.1992. The order of the District Horticulture Officer, who is the Appointing Authority of the petitioner, is on record as Annexure-2 to 2 the Writ Petition, which has not been denied. At the relevant time, petitioner had put in more than twenty years of service and consequently, the District Horticulture Officer vide his order dated 24.7.1992 stated that the petitioner will be deemed to have voluntary retired w.e.f. 31.8.1992. This order has also not been denied by the respondents. Consequently, however, when the papers of the petitioner were forwarded to higher authorities in the State Government, an objection was raised by the “Nideshak, Pension Nideshalaya Uttar Pradesh”, Indira Nagar, Lucknow vide his letter dated 15.3.1993 stating that the petitioner has not completed twenty years of service and is short of this mandatory period by one year six months and nine days as the petitioner, though, had worked in the District Horticulture Department for this period i.e. one year, six months and nine days, but at that time he was not yet twenty years of age. Since these objections were raised, the District Horticulture Officer vide his letter dated 24.1.1994 again requested the “Nideshak, Udyan Evam Khadya Prasanskaran Chhetra Uttar Pradesh, Udyan Bhawan, Chaubetiya” replied stating that in such a contingency a benevolent approach must be adopted and the post of “Mali”, which the petitioner has vacated, is still lying vacant, where he can be absorbed again so that he may complete the required period of service. All the same, no action was taken by the respondents, even on the subsequent recommendation of the District Horticulture Officer. 3. In sum and substance, the petitioner was not paid his post-retirement benefits and he, therefore was constrained to file a Writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was numbered as Writ 3 Petition No. 14406 of 1995. Counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Thereafter under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, this matter was transferred to this Court and has been renumbered as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 6740 of 2001. 4. The pleadings in this case are complete. 5. Heard arguments of the rival parties at length. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid narration of facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been unjustly denied his post retirement benefit. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner has not completed the required period of service and was short by one year six months and nine days, the mistake if at all was on the part of the respondents, namely, the District Horticulture Officer, who had accepted the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement under the law and duly forwarded the papers of the petitioner to the Pension Authorities. Consequently thereafter when the objections were raised, the minor anomaly was again sought to be rectified, inasmuch as, the petitioner could have been allowed to complete the remaining period of service on the post he was working at the relevant time. This was arbitrarily denied by the respondents. This action of the respondents deserves to be condemned. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that a mandamus is liable to be issued directing respondent no. 4 i.e. the Director, Pension Nideshalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Indira Nagar, Lucknow to calculate the post-retirement dues and pension of the petitioner. The entire arrears, which will be so calculated, shall be paid to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of seven per cent on the accumulated arrears within a period of three months 4 from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 7. Mr. N.P. Sah, Advocate represents respondent nos. 3 i.e. “Zila Udyan Adhikari”, Dehradun. Needless to mention that the petitioner, who was working on a district level post, was not liable to be transferred outside his district i.e. district Dehradun. Under Section 54 read with Eighth Schedule of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, the liability to give the pension lies on the State of U.P. Therefore, this direction is given to respondent no. 4 as the liability to give pension is of respondent no. 4. However, since it was a district level post as referred above and respondent no. 3 is represented by the State Counsel of the State of Uttarakhand, the State Government of Uttarakhand is also hereby directed to expedite the paper work and apprise respondent no. 4 as well as respondent no. 1 for a speedy compliance of this Court’s order. 8. With the aforesaid directions, Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 17.6.2010 Rathour