IMPORTANT POINT
Retiral benefits are a right of the employee, and undue delay in their disbursement by the State can lead to the imposition of interest and costs, reflecting the accountability of public authorities in fulfilling their obligations.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J :

I.A. No.10186 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 35 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 35 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 10186 of 2019 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.738 of 2019

5. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment/order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 2340 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned writ court while allowing the writ petition, has passed the following directions :-

9. Since entire amount under the heads of retiral benefits have been sanctioned only a month’s back after eight years of the retirement, I hereby direct the Treasury Officer to immediately make payment of the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits along with 12% statutory interest. Further, the concerned Department is saddled with the cost of Rs.1,50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the petitioner has been compelled and dragged in unnecessary litigation, which was unwarranted and because of the fault on the part of the respondent-Authorities, he has been made to suffer irreparable loss waiting for eight years to get the admitted rightful claim, the State is further saddled with the cost of litigation amounting to Rs.25,000/-, to be paid by the respondent-Department. Let it be made clear that the Secretary is free to fix the responsibility on the erring Officials, who were responsible for not disbursing the retiral benefits within time as per the entitlement. The Secretary may enquire the matter and recover the amount from the Officers found guilty for not disbursing the rightful claim of the petitioner within time.”

6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads as under:-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer under Rural Works Department on 28.03.1979 in the erstwhile State of Bihar.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he worked to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities, he was denied the salary for several months and on several occasions without any rhyme and reason.

8. The petitioner after his cadre allocation to the State of Jharkhand, superannuated from the services on 31.07.2011 from Rural Works Department, Work Division, Garhwa.

9. The petitioner after superannuation in 2011, filed several representations for payment of retiral benefits but the respondents have not paid any heed to the same and not a single penny was paid to him.

10. When nothing was paid to the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 5533 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.08.2014,with a direction to the Secretary of Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand to ensure that the admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner is paid after due compliance of all necessary formalities. Specific direction was made to make such payment along with statutory interest.

11. After the order passed by the learned writ court also when the retiral dues were not paid to the writ petitioner, the petitioner preferred a contempt case being Cont. Case (C). No. 626 of 2015.

12. When contempt application was filed and notices were issued, the respondent-State came with a plea that the order of the Court has been fully complied w