Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar vs U.O.I. Thru Secy. & Chairman ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20942 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru Secy. & Chairman Telecommunication Ministry &Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,K. Chandra
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 and Sri Krishna Chandra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party nos.2 to 4.
The present writ petition has been filed with regard to payment of the post retiral dues of the petitioner in respect of the privilege leave encashment and interest thereon. It has been stated that the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Engineer in I.T.I. Ltd., Raebareli and superannuated on 31.01.2016. On account of the said post retiral benefits not being made available to the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No. 24847 (S/B) of 2018 which was disposed of by means of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2018 directing the opposite parties to consider the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the order dated 30.10.2018 has been passed by the opposite party no.4 in which the dues of the petitioner have been admitted but at the same time have been refused to be paid on account of the continuous cumulative losses suffered by the company due to which it has been stated that the unit management is not in a position to make the said payments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the judgment and order dated 17.12.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 36456 (S/S) of 2018 pertaining to a similar dispute in which specific directions for payment of post retiral benefits of the petitioner therein was passed. The order dated 17.12.2018 reads as follows :-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned A.S.G. has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.1.
Sri K.C. Srivastava, learned Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
"The petitioner is claiming privilege leave encashment of 286 days.
The petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Engineer, retired from service on 31.1.2015.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of repeated approach made by the petitioner, no steps whatsoever have been taken by the respondents to release the payment of privilege leave encashment till date, therefore, his submission is that the act and action of the respondents is wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature.
Sri K.C. Srivastava, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 pointed out that the Managing Director is requesting to the respondent No.2 to release funds so that payment may be made to the petitioner and till date no fund has been released due to financial crunch in the department. He further submitted that as soon as fund is made available, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall release the payment in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute that the petitioner is entitled to get privilege leave encashment for the period of 286 days. He only submits that due to non release of funds from the respondent No.2, they are not able to ensure payment to the petitioner.
So far as dues of the employees are concerned, repeatedly this Court as well as the Apex Court has held that financial scarcity or financial constraint are no justification for not paying dues of the employees for which they have right to receive.Delay in payment of retiral benefits on account of financial crisis cannot be held to be justified and valid reason.
In the case of Samal Chand Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & others; 2006 (5) AWC 4991, the Apex Court has held that financial crunch or shortage of funds would not be a valid defence for the State where it is bound to discharge its duties which are statutory or constitutional.
The same view was taken in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India Vs. Cipla Ltd. & others; 2003 (7) SCC 1 and in the case of State of Gujarat & another Vs. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & another; 1974 (4) SCC 656.
This Court also noticed that it is not the case of the respondents that Managing Director, Chairman, Directors and other Officers of the respondent department are not receiving their perks, salaries and other benefits.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to ensure payment of privilege leave encashment of the petitioner of 286 days within 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order or to show-cause within the aforesaid period.
It is however made clear that in case the payment is not released in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid period, the salary of the Chairman, Managing Director, Director and other Officers shall not be released in their favour."
In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.12.2018 shall also be made available to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to raise his grievances with regard to payment of interest also which may be considered by the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Ashok Gupta
