Disposed

Smt. Pyaree Devi v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2018WRIA/9341/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the State was liable for the unauthorized delay in releasing retirement benefits, family pension, and revised pension for the petitioner's deceased husband after 12 years. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to release all dues within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the District Magistrate and State to release all dues, including family pension and revised pension, within four months with 8% interest.

Smt. Pyaree Devi Vs State of U P and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9341 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Pyaree Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jawahar Lal Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶3

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Magistrate, Mau as respondent no.5 in the writ petition.

¶4

Notice on behalf of the respondent no.5 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶5

Petitioner is the widow of deceased government servant, who was Lekhpal and had retired on 31.10.2006. Petitioner's husband has also died on 12.07.2010. The grievance raised is that till date the petitioner has not been paid the balance of pension as well as difference of revised pension apart from other benefits, which were due and payable.

¶6

While entertaining the writ petition following orders were passed by this Court on 09.05.2018:-

¶7

" The instruction supplied by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.

¶8

As per the written instruction supplied by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohamdabad, Gohana, Mau, it appears that the petitioner's husband namely the deceased employee was retired on 31.10.2006 and the leave encashment and the payment towards Group Insurance Scheme was made to his wife in the year 2018 i.e. 12 years after the date of retirement. In the meantime, the petitioner's husband had expired in the year 2010. There is no explanation as to how there is a delay of 12 years in processing the claim of retired deceased employee.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the averments made in the instruction are false. In fact full pension has not been accorded to the employee till his death and he was getting only provisional pension. His wife is not being given the full family pension.

¶10

In view of this submission, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks time to file personal affidavit of the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohamdabad, Gohana, Mau, placing on record the orders of sanction of pension to the deceased employee and family pension to his wife. The detail parawaise reply to the averments made in the writ petition shall be given in the said affidavit.

¶11

Put up this matter on 31.05.2018 in the additional cause list."

¶12

Learned Standing Counsel has filed the affidavit of Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned who, in his affidavit, has specified the various amounts which have been paid to the petitioner over period of time. It has been mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,30,529/- was paid towards G.P.F. on 14.05.2008, provisional pension was released to the deceased government servant on 16.07.2009 and that his regular pension was sanctioned on 21.07.2010. The amount of gratuity amounting to Rs.71,709/- was paid on 16.07.2009. Final gratuity amounting to Rs.1,07,541/-has been paid vide order dated 21.07.2010. It is then stated that Rs.79,660/- has been paid towards earned leave on 19.04.2018; Rs.30,000/- towards group insurance has been sanctioned on 21.04.2018 and Rs. 25,688/- has been paid as interest. A sum of Rs.23,288/- was paid towards arrears of subsistence allowance from 12.05.2003 to 08.01.2004.

¶13

The affidavit filed by the respondent does not specify as to from what date regular pension has been paid to petitioner's husband or the family pension to the petitioner. The pension has further now been revised after the introduction of 7th Pay Commission and the respondent state that necessary recommendations have been made in that regards.

¶14

From the facts noticed above, it is clear that for no justifiable cause has been disclosed as to why the retiral benefits payable to petitioner's husband, as also the family pension and revised family pension to the petitioner, have not been released so far.

¶15

Delay and latches on the part of the respondents cannot be approved of. It is otherwise settled that retiral benefits including pension etc. is not a bounty and is the entitlement of a government servant for his past services rendered. Delay in releasing the amount or unauthorized withholding of such amount would clearly be an arbitrary and illegal exercise.

¶16

In such circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the District Magistrate, Mau, as well as respondent no.2 to ensure release of all dues payable to petitioner's late husband, as well as the amounts payable to petitioner towards family pension, including the revised pension together with difference of amount payable, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum for the delay caused in release of such amount. It shall be open for the State authorities to determine the guilt of person who is found responsible for not processing and releasing the retiral benefits due and admissible to petitioner and to recover such amount from the salary of the erring official.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.7.2018 VKG

Smt. Pyaree Devi v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pyaree Devi v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mohd. Usman Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sunit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Prem Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others