Rameshwar Nath Sinha vs State of Bihar and Others

While on employment, Appellant was allotted a quarter. He retired on 31st December, 1992. It appears that sometimes in 1994 the Appellant vacated the quarter. Subsequent thereto, on 30th January, 1997 the amounts payable to the Petitioner on account of his retirement i.e. towards Group Insurance, General Provident Fund. etc. alongwith 90 per cent provisional pension was sanctioned. Even upto 1998 the amount due to the Petitioner on account of gratuity was neither sanctioned, nor paid. In the circumstance, the Appellant filed a writ petition seeking payment of gratuity and interest thereon. In the writ petition it was contended that in view of the decision of the Government, the Petitioner is entitled to 5 per cent interest on the amount of gratuity.

The Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit and thereby contended that the Petitioner vacated the quarters in 1994 and'' ''No Dues Certificate'' was not furnished and, accordingly, there has been some delay in releasing the gratuity payable to the Petitioner. At the same time it was also contended that ''No Dues Certificate'' has since been received.

In the circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the Respondents to pay the amount of gratuity within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order under appeal.

The present appeal is for enforcement of the right of the Appellant to recover 5 per cent interest on the amount of gratuity for delay in payment of the same.

There is no dispute that the Government has decided that in the event, there is delay in releasing pension, the pensioner shall be entitled to 5 per cent interest. There is also no dispute that in accordance with the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, gratuity is part of pension. Therefore, the decision of the Government to pay 5 per cent interest for the delay in payment of pension would incur liability of the Government to pay and accrue the right of the pensioner to obtain interest @ 5% per annum on the amount of gratuity for the delay in releasing or paying the same.

Before the learned Single Judge Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 purported to link the liability of the State to pay gratuity with the vacation of the quarter by the Appellant beyond permissible period arid obtaining and submissions of ''No Dues Certificate''. In order to enforce the obligation to vacate a quarter allotted to an employee upon his retirement, appropriate steps are required to be taken. In the event an employee remains in the quarter beyond the permissible limit, the employee incurs-certain liability. Those liabilities are recoverable and for that purpose appropriate procedure has been prescribed. Since such procedure has been prescribed, the same cannot be linked with payment of pension. In the instant case, it does not appear from the counter affidavit that any part of the gratuity payable to the Petitioner was to be appropriated towards rent and penal rent pertaining to overstay by the Appellant in the allotted quarter. Furnishing of ''No Dues Certificate'' is not within the control of a retiring employee. It depends on the existing employees of the Stated They are to issue such certificates. It does not appear from the counter affidavit that any justification has been put forward as to why ''No Dues Certificate'' was released sometime in 1998, when the employee concerned retired on 31st December, 1992 and the quarter was admittedly vacated by him in 1994.

In those circumstances, it does not appear to us that liability to pay interest could be avoided on the pleas as were taken in the counter affidavit.

In the circumstances, we allow the appeal and accordingly, modify the order under appeal by directing payment of gratuity, together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date of retirement of the Appellant until payment thereof. The interest shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of service of a copy of this order on the appropriate authority.