Back
1992 Supreme(All) 110
High Court of Allahabad
M.Katju, J.
Mukti Nath Rai
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh
Civil Mite. Writ Petition no. 101341 of 1991
Decided On : Feb 21, 1992
Advocate Appeared:
G.K.Singh, R.N.Singh
Pension is a valuable right, and retired government employees are entitled to prompt payment of their pension and retirement benefits.
Headnote:
PENSION - U. P. CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS, RULES 906-960 - MANDAMUS ISSUED TO ENSURE PROMPT PAYMENT OF PENSION TO RETIRED U. P. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - RULES TO BE FOLLOWED STRICTLY - ARREARS OF PENSION AND INTEREST TO BE PAID TO PETITIONER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a retired Technical Assistant from the PWD, U. P. Government, had not received his pension or retirement benefits for 10 years despite retirement. Despite representations and legal notices, the concerned officials failed to take action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the inaction and indifference of the concerned officials to be shocking and unacceptable. It noted that the petitioner, now almost 70 years old, had faced undesirable financial hardship due to the delay in payment of his pension.
Issues: 1. Whether the concerned officials were negligent in not processing the petitioner's pension papers promptly. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pension and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the concerned officials had acted in a callous and indifferent manner by not forwarding the petitioner's pension papers promptly to the Accountant General's office. 2. The court relied on the U. P. Civil Service Regulations, Rules 906-960, which emphasize promptness in the grant of pension. 3. The court held that pension is a valuable right and not a bounty, and that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pension and interest.
Final Decision: 1. A general mandamus was issued to all U. P. government departments to strictly follow Rules 906-960 of the Civil Service Regulations and ensure prompt payment of pension to retired employees. 2. The Executive Engineer was directed to forward the petitioner's pension papers to the Accountant General's office within 3 weeks, and the Accountant General was directed to finalize the same within a month. 3. The petitioner was awarded arrears of pension and interest at 12% thereon.
M.Katju
1. This case highlights the plight of hundreds of retired government employees, who are not paid pension and other retirement dues even for many years after retirement. It is distressing to note that desipite the judgment of this court in Ram Sewak Singh v. Accountant General, 1990 (2) UP LB EC 1027, and the anguish expressed by Honourable Mr. Justice Ganguly over this matter it does not seem to have had any salutory effect in the relevant officials who still remain as Callous and indifferent as they were before.
2. The petitioner in the present case retired on 31-12-1981 from U. P. Government service as Technical Assistant in the PWD, but has yet not been paid any pension. He alleges that his [papers for pension, gratuity, G. P. F. etc. ought to have been sent to the Accountant General's Office six months before retirement, but were not sent. He made a representation on 29-8- 1983 and reminders on 3-10-83 and 11-1-84 to the Executive Engineer. Thereafter he received a letter dated 13-2-84 making certain allegations regarding some cement and steel issued to a contractor, and asking the petitioner to submit his reply within 3 days. Surprisingly enough the allegation was made more than 2 years after the petitioner's retirement. The petitioner immediately sent his reply, and thereafter the matter appears to have been dropped.
The petitioner again made a, representation on 10-9-84 requesting the Assistant Engineer to issue no dues certificate in favour of the petitioner so that the matter relating to his pension, gratuity and G. P. F. may be finalised. In spite of this representation, no heed was paid to the same, and hence the petitioner sent a notice under section 80 Civil Procedure Code, the result of which was that the Executive Engineer wrote a letter dated 22-1-85 to the Assistant Engineer asking him to finalise the matter. However, no action was taken by the respondents, and hence the petitioner sent another representation on 4-3-86 to the Executive Engineer. Thereafter he was told that the matter was not being finalised as his service book was missing. The petitioner thereupon got a duplicate service book prepared, and he made another representation on 2-8-88. On receiving it the Executive Engineer wrote a letter dated 3-9-88 to the petitioner asking him to give details of his case and file an affidavit. The petitioner complied with these directions. The petitioner then received a letter dated 17-5-89 from the Executive Engineer asking him to submit a photograph along with his wife duly attested. He complied with this strange request also. After waiting for some time the petitioner again made a representation dated 7-2-89 for payment of his pension etc. but to no avail. All these facts reveal utter callousness and indifference on the part of the concerned officials.
3. In this case time for filing counter affidavit was granted on several occasions to the Standing counsel, but no counter affidavit has been filed. Ultimately on 4-12-1991 the court granted 3 weeks and no more for filing counter affidavit, but still no counter affidavit has been filed. I am, therefore, presuming, the allegations in the writ petition to be correct.
4. The facts disclosed in the writ petition are shocking. The petitioners retired 10 years ago, but as yet he has not been paid his pension or retirement benefits. It is deeply regrettable that the Executive Engineer has not acted in a responsible manner. A senior officer is supposed to look after the interest of his subordinates. In particular he should have seen to it that the petitioner's papers were forwarded promptly to the Accountant Generals' office so that a retired person should get his pension etc. promptly. Instead, the Executive Engineer has procrastinated unnecessarily over the matter, and has caused needless harassment to the petitioner. The result has been that the petitioner, who is now almc6t 70 years old, has obviously faced undesirable financial hardship. As held by t
