Motiram Sona Bhole vs Accountant General, Mumbai and Another

B.N. Srikrishna, J.—Rule. Returnable forthwith. By consent Rule is called out for hearing and heard.

The petitioner retired from the service of Railway Police under the State Government with effect from 1st May 1985 and it is his grievance that at the time of settling his general provident fund account a sum of Rs. 2,000/- has been wrongfully withheld. The first Respondent, Accountant General, noticed that the petitioner had been given a non-refundable advance of Rs. 500/- by the Deputy I.G.P. and R.CID, M.S., Pune on 29th September 1973 for additions, alterations and repairs of his house. The first installment of Rs. 250/- was paid to him vide Pune Treasury V.R. No. 683 of 4/74. Since the debit of the second installment of the advance paid to the petitioner had not appeared in his G.P.F. account, nor was their any order of cancellation of the second installment of non-refundable advance, the Accountant General withheld an amount of Rs. 2,000/- while authorising final payment to the petitioner. Simultaneously, the first Respondent, Accountant General, made a reference to the second respondent to furnish the full particulars, such as, Treasury Voucher No. and date of second installment of the non-refundable advance, if paid to the petitioner and, if not, the second respondent was requested to furnish the reasons for non-payment along with a copy of the cancellation of the second installment, if such was the case. Three such letters were addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent on 31st July 1985, 28th January 1987 and 27th June 1996 and, unfortunately for the petitioner, none of these letters was replied, nor was the information called for by the Accountant General''s office furnished. Consequently, the Accountant General was not able to finalise the general provident fund payment to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 2,000/- remained unpaid to the petitioner.

The petitioner addressed a letter dated 7th October 1996 to the learned Chief Justice which was treated as a Suo Motu Writ Petition and assigned to this Court. Even after the notice before Admission was issued in this petition, there has been considerable delay because the respondents either did not appear before the Court, or were not in a position to place the correct facts and circumstances before the Court. In fact, the presence of the concerned officers had to be secured before this Court by specific directions issued, the failure to comply with which resulted in contempt notices being issued to both the Respondents.

Finally, the second respondent has appeared before the Court today and pleaded that he is not aware of the letters dated 31st July, 1985 and 28th January 1987 as they are not traceable in the records of the second respondent''s office. He also stated that the required information was submitted to the first respondent''s office by the second respondent''s office along with letters dated 19th July 1997 and 4th September 1997.

In these circumstances, Mr. Malvankar, learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that there has been no delay on the part of both the respondents and that there is no reason for granting any interest, compensation or costs to the petitioner. He also states that the Pay and Accounts Office have forwarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- withheld from the general provident fund account of the petitioner together with a sum of Rs. 6,148/- towards interest for delayed payment. He also states that interest has been calculated at the rate of 10.58 per annum for the accounting year 1985-86 and at the rate of 12.58 per annum from the accounting year 1986-87 to the end of September 1997. The learned Assistant Government Pleader says that the amount has been received by the office of the second respondent and the petitioner is free to collect the same immediately.

I am not at all satisfied that there was any justification for the inordinate delay in payment of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- withheld from the general provident fund account of the petitioner. The explanation tendered across the bar for the concerned letters of the Accountant General not coming to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, is that the records were destroyed by termites. This may or may not be true. But, as long as the petitioner is not responsible for it, I see no reason why the petitioner should suffer for the failure of some establishment of the Government of Maharashtra to maintain its records properly or for the failure of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, to forward the information called for by the Accountant General''s Office.

Mr. Malvankar contends that, even if there was delay (which is virtually now admitted by the sanctioned payment of interest) the petitioner has been compensated by granting an interest of Rs. 6,148/- on the delayed amount of Rs. 5,000/- and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further reliefs.

Considering the maximum rate of interest which was prevalent at the material time, the interest amount may have been properly calculated. But, mere payment of interest can not absolve the respondents of their responsibility for inflicting agony on the petitioner by inordinately delaying the amount rightfully due to him. Assuming that there is truth in the story of the second respondent that he was unable to comply with the request made in the Accountant General''s letters because the records were eaten away by termites, the responsibility for it squarely devolves on the second respondent and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the same. In my opinion, any public authority which makes a citizen run from pillar to post for collecting an amount that is legitimately and rightfully due to him, for a period of fifteen years, cannot be heard to say that the citizen''s agony is adequately compensated by paying him interest payable under the rules. In my view, the petitioner needs to be compensated further for the mental agony inflicted upon him for the last fifteen years. That too, when for inability to get appropriate information about sanction or refusal to sanction the second installment of non-refundable advance of Rs. 250/-, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- has been withheld right from the year 1985.

In my assessment, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) should be paid to the petitioner as costs.

The second respondent shall, within a period of three weeks from today, pay the amount of Rs. 8,148/- (Rupees Eight thousand one hundred forty eight only) together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall attend the office of the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Bombay at 11.00 a.m. on 20th October, 1997, on which date he shall be issued a cheque for Rs. 8,148/-. The amount of the costs will be paid to him within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Rule accordingly made absolute with costs.

Issuance of certified copy of this judgment expedited.