Retiral benefits are a vested right and not a bounty. When the employer fails to finalize these dues due to administrative negligence or loss of service records, the employee is entitled to the benefits along with interest as compensation for the delay.

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

By way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:-

(i). Pay the petitioner his permanent pension with all unpaid retiral dues including provident fund, leave encashment, arrears of pension etc with consequential pensionary benefit with compoundable rate of interest @ 12% from the date the same became due.

(ii). Direct the respondents to produce service record of the petitioner including, appointment letter, GPF passbook details of deduction made from salary of the petitioner, Pension Payment Order etc. For the perusal and consideration before this Hon’ble Court.

(iii). Direct the respondent to compensate the petitioner with adequate amount for inordinate delay in setting retiral dues of the petitioner.

(iv). Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case may also be awarded, in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the District Judiciary and was posted at various places, including Jabalpur, Mandsaur, and Damoh. While posted at the District Court, Damoh, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and, by order dated 03.08.1998, was inflicted with the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 10(7) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Consequent thereto, the petitioner stood retired from service, however, his pension and retiral dues were not finalized. Despite submitting a representation dated 01.08.2000 seeking release of pension and other retiral benefits, only a Pension Payment Order dated 08.06.2001 was issued, granting a meagre amount of temporary pension, while other retiral dues such as gratuity, GPF, leave encashment, and insurance were withheld. Correspondence on record, including letters dated 04.01.2001 and 01.01.2002, reveals that permanent pension was not sanctioned and that requisite documents were not furnished by the respondent authorities for processing the petitioner’s retiral claims. Even thereafter, 5% of the petitioner’s pension was withheld instead of finalizing his dues.

3 . The record further discloses that despite repeated representations, the petitioner was repeatedly asked to submit service records, which admittedly remained in the exclusive custody of the department and were subsequently found to have been misplaced, as revealed under the Right to Information Act. A letter dated 28.03.2019 issued by the office of the Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh, indicates that due to non-submission of essential documents by the respondent authorities, the petitioner’s final retiral payment could not be processed. Intra-departmental correspondence shows that as many as nine reminders were issued for furnishing the service record, yet no effective steps were taken, resulting in deprivation of the petitioner’s lawful retiral benefits for more than two decades. Owing to this prolonged inaction, the petitioner has suffered acute financial hardship, his wife is suffering from serious ailments requiring continuous medical treatment, pension being the sole source of income for the family. It is further stated that the petitioner was even deprived of performing Haj due to non-payment of his retiral dues and resultant financial constraints.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that payment of retiral dues is a fundamental obligation of the employer and a constitutional right of the employee, therefore, the prolonged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is unjust, unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary. It is contended that there is no justification whatsoever for non-finalization of the petitioner’s retiral dues for more than two decades, particularly when no lapse is attributable to the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had submitted his application along with all requisite documents and declaration forms as early as in the year 1998 and again on s