Haji Anayatullah vs State and Others

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge

Petitioner was working as Works Supervisor in the office of Executive Engineer R&B Division-II, Kargil. While reaching superannuation retired

on 1.3.1990. The papers for grant of pensionery benefits were processed but were finally settled after 18 years. The pensionery benefit as were

due have been paid to him but his grievance is that the interest payable such amount for the withheld period of 18 years has not been paid to him

so has filed the instant petition.

The respondents No. 1 to 4 in their reply have made the position quite clear and have given cogent reasons for the delay.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, on humanitarian grounds in relaxation of rules after long persuasions pension was sanctioned

otherwise petitioner did not possess the qualifying service for grant of pension. Explaining the said position, it is stated that the petitioner was

brought on regular establishment but in view of his lesser service was not qualifying for pension under Civil Service rules. The pension case of the

petitioner was forwarded to the respondent Accountant General well before the date of superannuation but the Accountant General on 29.6.1990

made it clear that the petitioner was not entitled to pension in view of lesser qualifying service but again the case was submitted to the Accountant

General after recording reply vis-a-vis objections as were raised and in the meantime matter was taken up with District Superintending Engineer,

PWD, Kargil on 3.4.1991 for declaring the petitioner permanent on the post of Works Supervisor although he was declared as quasi permanent

by the District Superintending Engineer on 14.12.1990 to which petitioner was not entitled for having less than five years of service. Then the

District Superintending Engineer declared the petitioner permanent with effect from 1.4.1986, same was not within his competence but the

respondents took various measures and referred the case to respondent No. 5 (Accountant General) on 14.5.1991 but again respondent No. 5

returned the pension case on 25.11.1991 questioning therein competence of District Superintending Engineer PWD, Kargil to declare the

petitioner permanent in relaxation of rules because such powers only lies with the Government. Again respondents took up the matter on

21.7.1995 for early settlement of petitioner's pension case but again with a negative reply to the effect that the petitioner being not entitled to

pensionary benefits so respondent No. 5 accordingly closed the case on 31.10.1995. Again the case was re-opened by the other respondents in

the year 2007 with a request to respondent No. 5 that the matter has been referred to Administrative Department and the action taken by District

Superintending Engineer, PWD Kargil has been confirmed by the Government vide Govt. order No. 41-PW(R&B) of 2008 dated 28.1.2008.

In the reply it is clearly indicated that it is only in views of hectic persuasions and protracted correspondence the settlement of pension case with

all retrial benefits could fructify. The delay in finalizing the pension case of the petitioner was circumstantial and in fact it is untiring efforts of the

respondents that now the petitioner is able to get his pension

The reply filed by the respondents explaining reason for delay in settlement of the pension case of the petitioner has remained to be

controverted. Grant of interest in the given circumstances is not permissible.

Petition being without any merit is dismissed.