The petition challenged an order rejecting a claim for interest on delayed post-retirement dues. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner failed to prove the department received her prior correspondence requesting charge handing over.
Petitioner's petition for quashing of the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21086 of 2022
Petitioner :- Vimla Devi Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Astitva Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Neetu Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 01.08.2022 by which the benefit of interest on the delayed payment in respect of post retiral dues has been rejected and further a writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought directing the respondent no.3 to pass fresh orders for grant of interest on the delayed payment.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2021. Prior to her retirement, the petitioner had moved application to the Authority concerned for handing over the charge, however, it was not responded and the petitioner followed up her grievance by moving repeated letters. However, still there was no response from the department. It is only for the first time on 23.12.2021 that the department sent a letter to the petitioner asking her to hand over the charge in pursuance whereof the charge was handed over.
It is further prayed that on account of repeated delay at the end of the department, the petitioner has lost sizeable amount payable to her towards the interest and despite having made representation, the same did not find favour and culminated in the order dated 01.08.2022 which is under challenge. It is also submitted that since the petitioner is not at fault, accordingly the respondents be directed to pay interest on the
delayed payment.
In view of the aforesaid claims made by the petitioner, this Court required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions by means of order dated 16.01.2023 in pursuance whereof the written instruction dated 13.02.2023 has been provided to the Court for perusal.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner is responsible for the delay. It is not disputed that the petitioner retired on 31.10.2021. The department had sent a letter to the petitioner dated 25.01.2022 asking her to complete the formalities and in furtherance thereof, the formalities were completed by the petitioner on 29.03.2022 and thereafter the payment has been processed and leave encashment was paid to the petitioner on 20.04.2022, group insurance was paid on 11.05.2022 and G.P.F. was also paid to the petitioner on 20.05.2022.
It has also been pointed out that the petitioner who is brought on record certain letters to buttress the contention that the petitioner had moved application for handing over the charge is not quite correct for the reason that none of the letters have been received in the ofÏce and there is no clear averment in the writ petition to substantiate the aforesaid fact.
For the aforesaid reason, it is urged that the impugned order whereby the contention of the petitioner for grant of interest has been rejected, does not suffer from any error which may persuade this Court to interfere.
Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the letters dated 28.10.2021 and repeated letters which have been brought on record as a part of annexure no.2 that the petitioner had made repeated request and sent letters for handing over the charge but the department slept over the matter. Having noticed the aforesaid annexures, this Court finds that it is the admitted case of the
petitioner that she received the letter dated 23.12.2021 for handing over the charge and in response to the said letter and even later when the petitioner made representation to the department for claiming interest on the delayed payment, there is no reference to any of those letters which have been brought on record as annexure no.s1 and 2 nor there is any material to indicate and substantiate that the said letters were actually received in the department and despite that the department did not respond.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to paragraph 5 of the writ petition, however, reading the same indicates that it is vague averment without any material particulars to persuade this Court to place reliance thereon. In light of the fact that the department has sent a letter to the petitioner on 25.01.2022 for completion of the formalities which was completed by the petitioner only on 29.03.2022 thereafter the payments have been made to the petitioner, hence this Court does not find that there is any error in rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on delayed payment. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.2.2023 ank
Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed post-retirement dues given departmental delays in processing charge handing over formalities?
Whether the petitioner's past correspondence was received and acknowledged, warranting departmental liability for the interim delay?
Vimla Devi Pandey
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
Respondent No. 4
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
