Pensionary benefits are a valuable right rather than a bounty. State authorities are statutorily obligated to ensure timely disbursement, and administrative or procedural delays not attributable to the employee cannot justify withholding such payments or denying interest to the retiree.

JUDGMENT :

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Alina Masoodi, learned Amicus Curiae, and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

Reliefs Claimed in the Writ Petition

2. The petitioner, by means of the present petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-

Facts of the Case

3. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2019 after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Administrative Officer, State Tax Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh. Certain amounts relating to Group Insurance, G.P.F., leave encashment and arrears were released through separate orders from time to time. The payment of Rs.94,204/- towards Group Insurance was made vide Office Order No.974 dated 27.10.2019. The amount of Rs.1,18,840/- towards 90% G.P.F. was released vide Order No.335 dated 16.09.2019. Earned leave encashment amounting to Rs.6,76,480/- was also paid to the petitioner. In addition thereto, arrears on pay fixation amounting to Rs.1,11,179/- were paid vide Order No.2882 dated 17.09.2019 and an amount of Rs.30,200/- towards arrears of earned leave due to enhancement in the rate of dearness allowance from 12% to 17% was paid vide Order No.3834 dated 15.11.2019. However, despite retirement on 30.09.2019, the petitioner's regular pension, gratuity, commutation and other substantial retiral dues were sanctioned only vide order dated 27.06.2020 passed by the Additional Director, Pension and Treasury, Lucknow and were ultimately released on 05.07.2020 after an inordinate delay of more than nine months.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-State wherein it has been specifically admitted that the delay in payment of post-retiral dues occurred due to procedural formalities and administrative reasons. It has further been submitted that even in the impugned rejection order dated 08.07.2022, it has specifically been admitted that due to delay in issuance of non-payment/no-dues certificates by the office of the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, the retiral dues of the petitioner could not be released within time and were consequently paid after considerable delay.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no disciplinary proceedings or departmental enquiry were ever initiated or contemplated against the petitioner during his entire service tenure and the petitioner possessed an unblemished service record. It is thus argued that there existed absolutely no justification whatsoever for withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner and releasing the same after an inordinate delay of more than nine months.

6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Uma Agrawal vs. State of U.P. , reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Indrajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. , reported in 2008 SCC OnLine All 2738

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents

7. Per contra, Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-State, has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner himself was responsible for the delay in release of ret