AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.N. Nagamohan Das
In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of a certiorari to quash the order dated 07.08.3009 Annexure - G, passed by the second respondent rejecting the claim of petitioner for payment of interest for the delayed period in settling and pension and also taking into consideration the period from initial entry into service for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits.
Petitioner was appointed on 20.08.1970 as lecturer in political science in the respondent No. 4 institution and retired from service on 31.05.3003 on attaining superannuation. After lapse of 29 months from the date of retirement the respondents have released the pensionary benefits. While calculating the pensionary benefits the respondents have excluded the period from 07.07.1977 to 02.12.1977 on the ground that during this parted petitioner worked in an unaided collage under the same respondent Further the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on retirement benefits on the ground that the delay is attributable to the petitioner and the 4th respondent management Hence this writ petition.
It is not in dispute that on 20.08.1970 the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the 4th respondent institution and the same is an aided institution. Admittedly there is a delay of 29 months in settling pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Though in the impugned order it is stated that the delay is attributable to the petitioner and the 4th respondent management the same is not specified in detail
This Court in WP Ho. 31154/2009 in the case of Smt. Susheelamma Vs. Accountant General A & E, Pension Division, Karnataka & Another reported in 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 230 held as under:
Pension is not a bounty payable at the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in the Government servant. The right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Art 31(1) of the Constitution of India and the State, has no power to either withhold or cause delay in the payment. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Art. 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-Article (5) of Art. 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying petitioner''s right to receive pension and it is the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This is the law laid down by five Judges of the Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, .
In a similar circumstance, though not identical, a case where there was a delay of four years in payment of the pensionary benefits to an employee of the State, the Apex Court in the case of AIR 2000 SC 3513a directed payment of interest at the rate of 1896 p.a. from the date of retirement till payment.
The lethargy are inaction on the part of the officials of the respondents in not securing the relevant No Objection. Certificate from the offices where the retired official had performed his duty, well within reasonable time, cannot be heard to say that 12 years, 3 months was reasonable time to effect payment of pension and the petitioner is disentitled to the interest on the said sum. That contention must stand repelled.
In the circumstances in the impugned order to denying the payment of interest is contrary to the law declared by this Court referred to supra. Therefore matter requires reconsideration.
Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 1970 and retired from service in the year 2003. On transfer by the respondents the petitioner worked between 07.07.1977 and 02.12.1977 in a sister concern of the 4th respondent institution and the same was unaided. It is not on account of petitioner he worked in an unaided institution. On the other hand petitioner was forced to work in an unaided institution during this period. In the circumstances it is necessary to take into account this period for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. On this ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed. For the reasons stated above the following
ORDER
Writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 07.08.2009 Annexure - G, is hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded to second respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of thin order.