Smt. Suman Pradhan vs Deputy Director of Education, Region IVth and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—The Petitioner, Smt. Suman Pradhan retired as a Vice-Principal of K.P. Girls Intermediate College, Allahabad on 30 June, 1990.

The issue in this petition is mainly on the claim for interest on delayed payment of the General Provident Fund for a period of 10 months and 25 days. The claim for interest is at the rate of 18%. The other relief sought is a direction to the Respondents i.e. the officials of the education department and the management of K P. Girls Intermediate College, Allahabad i.e., that the pension be paid regularly.

It is admitted to the Petitioner that the Provident Fund has been paid up to 25-5-1991. The Petitioner contends that it was paid 10 months and 25 days after her retirement. A perusal of the record of the petition reveals that the Petitioner had put the Deputy Direct or of Education, IV. Region, Allahabad on a notice dated 19 June, 1992 (Annexure-3 to the petition) that, as full payment against the Provident Fund has been delayed and should she not receive the aforesaid payment within one month of the receipt of her letter claiming it, she would move the Competent Court for redressal of her grievance.

In so far as the pension in concerned, the only grievance is that it is not paid regularly and that a writ of mandamus be issued to make regular payment of pension. No details have been mentioned in the writ petition as to when the pension had been delayed, or the details of gaps, when the pension was not paid. In the absence of specific details, it would not be appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus.

In so far as, the claim for interest is concerned, the Petitioner has moved this Court almost after two years to claim interest on a delayed payment.

This Court is not suggesting that the Petitioner is not entitled to test her claim if the payment against the Provident Fund has been delayed, but quantification of the amount and rate is a matter which needs to be gone in a suit and this is not case in which the Court can go into an issue on the unreasonableness of delay.

This is not one of those cases where a retired person in State service applies to the High Court with a complaint that the pension itself is not being given. In such cases, this Court, regard had being-to, the circumstances does, put the State under notice, so that the return on tie writ petition comes within a time bound scheduled to ensure that the post-retirement benefits are available to the staff of the State. The present case is one where the Petitioner has already received her General Provident Fund in the year 1991, but she claims interest by a writ petition. This interest may be claimed by filing a suit but not a writ petition.

In these circumstances, the present writ petition for the reason given above, is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine.