Interest on delayed post-retiral benefits and accountability for bureaucratic negligence established, mandating 6% interest due to culpable delays.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, District Bijnor dated July the 3^rd, 2024, declining to pay interest on the belated disbursement of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was a Revenue Moharir in the employ of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara, Bijnor[‘Nagar Palika’ for short]. His date of birth is 01.06.1959. On 15.02.1977, he was appointed a Naib Moharir with the Nagar Palika. He was appointed for a period of two months on a temporary basis vide order dated 15.02.1977 passed by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika, under Section 70 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916[‘Act of 1916’ for short]. After the petitioner completed the period of two months with effect from 15.04.1977, his employment was not extended. On 16^th of April, 1977, upon an application made by the petitioner, he was appointed again to the post of a Naib Moharir for two months on a temporary basis. This time he was permitted to work until the month of December, 1977.

3. Eschewing unnecessary detail, all that deserves to be noticed is that the petitioner was regularized in service by an order of the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika dated 09.05.1982, with effect from 01.06.1982. The petitioner discharged his duties regularly thereafter. On 09.01.2018, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dhampur, Bijnor, directed the Executive Officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner into a complaint dated 02.01.2018, addressed by one Sushil Kumar Verma to the Chief Minister on the jansunwai portal. The complaint was that the petitioner was appointed before attaining the age of 18 years. These complaints are said to be repeated and were disposed of. Still another inquiry was made by the Naib Tehsildar, Seohara, Dhampur, where an inquiry report dated 19.03.2018 was made, finding that the first ad hoc appointment of the petitioner on the post of Naib Moharir was made on 15.02.1977, when he was aged 17 years 8 months and 14 days. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dhampur, on 28.03.2018, made a recommendation that appropriate action be taken by the competent authority on the basis of the Naib Tehsildar’s inquiry report dated 19.03.2018. Relying upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s report, the Executive Officer passed an order of suspension dated 23.08.2018.

4. Two months afterwards i.e. on 05.11.2018, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, carrying five charges. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge-sheet on 01.12.2018, together with documents in support of his defence. The Junior Engineer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Seohara was appointed the Inquiry Officer. He served a notice upon the petitioner dated 10.01.2019, requiring him to appear on 18.01.2019 at 02:00 p.m. The petitioner appeared in compliance with the notice. The Inquiry Officer, according to the petitioner, perhaps, submitted his report on the basis of proceedings taken on 18.01.2019. On 06.03.2019, the Executive Officer intimated the petitioner that he would retire on 31.05.2019, upon completing 60 years of age. The petitioner says that on 25.04.2019, he submitted an application to the Executive Officer to take a decision in the disciplinary matter, because the Inquiry Officer would have submitted his report and the petitioner was going to retire on 31.05.2019. No heed was paid to the said letter and the disciplinary matter was kept pending. The petitioner retired on 31.05.2019, without a decision being taken in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. On 01.07.2019, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 4 to release his pension and the other post-retiral benefits. No action was taken. A period of eleven months passed by since his suspension on 23.08.2018 and more than six months from the date that he appeared before the Inquiry Officer. Still, no final orders were made in the disciplinary matter.

5. The petitioner was compelled to move