Allahabad High Court
Rajuwa vs State Of U.P. & Others on 24 April, 2012
Bench: Devi Prasad Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 54622 of 2008
Petitioner :- Rajuwa
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ranjeet Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anil Kr. Srivastava
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
List revised. None appeared for the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.
The petitioner, who was working as Safaai Karamchari in Nagar Panchayat, Chitrakoot had attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1998. In spite of the fact that he attained the age of superannuation with bright service record, the respondents had not paid post retiral dues. Being aggrieved with the inaction of opposite parties no. 2 and 3, Writ Petition No. 38137 of 2006 was filed which was disposed of by judgment and order dated 20.7.2006 with the direction to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to take appropriate decision in accordance with law within three months.
According to petitioner's counsel, in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, Nagar Palika took a decision on 20.11.2006 and held that the petitioner had right to avail the benefit of post retiral dues, copy of the order dated 20.11.2006 has been annexed as Annexure No. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is running from pillar to post but no decision has been taken for interest on delayed payment of post retiral dues having no fault on his part. Since there is delay in payment of post retiral dues, the petitioner is entitled for payment of interest. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight.
Now, it is settled proposition of law that an employee shall be entitled for payment of interest in case delay is caused because of inaction on the part of employer and having no fault on the part of petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that if payment of retiral benefits are delayed without any justification, the employer must be asked to pay interest on such amount vide State of Kerala Vs. M.P. Nayyar, AIR 1985 SC 356 ; Charan Singh Vs. M/s. Birla Textile & Anr., AIR 1988 SC 2022 ; R.S. Dhule Vs. State of Haryana, (1998) 4 SCC 379 ; Vijai L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & ors., 2002 SCC (L&S) 278; and H.G. Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., 2003 AIR SCW 885); (2008) 9 ADJ 344 : Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. And JT 2008 (1) SC 331, S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another. This, to my mind would apply with full force in present case also.
In view of settled proposition of law, the petitioner seems to be entitled for payment of post retiral dues alongwith interest.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for interest on account of delayed payment of post retiral dues which is assessed to the extent of 8% per annum. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposite parties to ensure payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum on account of delay in making payment of post retiral dues. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2012
Rizvi
