Delhi High Court
M.S. Kaushik vs N.D.M.C. And Ors. on 7 May, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 2 STJ 33 Delhi
Author: R Sharma
Bench: R Sharma
JUDGMENT
Rekha Sharma, J.
1. The wife of the petitioner, namely, Bimla Kaushik was a Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in N.P. Boys Secondary School No. 2, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, which is being run by respondent No. 1. On July 23, 2002, she had taken voluntary retirement. However, she was not paid her retrial benefits despite her repeated requests, representations and personal visits to the office of respondent No. 1. Unfortunately, on March 6, 2003 she died and, thereafter, it fell upon her husband to pursue the case with respondent No. 1. He did receive the benefits but belatedly.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a chart containing the details as to when the retiral benefits under each head were ultimately paid by respondent No. 1. These details are available on page No. 65 of the paper book. Counsel submits that Bimla Kaushik and, upon her death, her husband had to undergo lot of harassment on account of non-payment of her retiral benefits. They have three daughters who were to be married and the retiral benefits were badly needed to perform their marriages.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute that there has been delay in paying the retiral benefits to the petitioner but submits that the delay has occurred because it took time to process the papers pertaining to the benefits claimed by the employee and then by her husband.
4. Under the CCS (Pension) Rules, Rules 68(2) and 68(3)(ii) read with Govt. of India Decision and Fundamental Rule 26, the retiral benefits are to be paid soon after the retirement without delay. Relying upon this rule, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was after an inordinate delay, that the retiral benefits of the employee were paid to the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the above rules on which reliance has been placed apply to those employees who retire on attaining the age of superannuation and will not apply to those who Jake voluntary retirement. The argument is that in the case of an employee retiring on superannuation, his date of retirement is known in advance and, therefore, there can be no justification in not granting the retiral benefits to such an employee as per the rules. In the case of an employee taking voluntary retirement, the submission is that his date of retirement gets known only when the application for voluntary retirement is accepted. In such a case, the process of calculating the retiral benefits cannot be initiated in advance and that results in delay in the payment of retiral benefits.
6. Be that as it may, even in the case of voluntary retirement, the concerned department cannot sit over the retiral benefits. Those must be paid within a reasonable time. A period of six months can ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable time with regard to such payment as the process cannot be allowed to go on endlessly.
7. Here is a case where the employee herself and later her husband had to pursue the case for more than one year after the employee stood retired voluntarily. In the meanwhile, the employee died leaving the poor husband to continue the pursuit. No worthwhile explanation has come for the delay caused. Therefore, I direct the respondent to pay simple interest @ 18% per annum under the various heads. The interest shall be calculated after the expiry of six months from July 23, 2002 till payment is made. The view that I have taken is forfeited by a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000(2) SLR 686 and Gorakhpur University and Ors. v. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Ors. . In these cases also, the retiral benefits were paid belatedly and the Supreme Court had accordingly awarded simple interest @ 18 per cent with effect from the date of retirement. Here, in the present case, I am not awarding interest from the date of retirement, but from 6 months after the acceptance of application for voluntary retirement because of the submission made by the Counsel for the respondent that in this case, the date of retirement was not known well in advance.
8. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
