Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2025WRIA/31361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking interest on delayed payment of a deceased Mukhya Sewika's post-retiral dues including gratuity, group insurance, leave encashment and salary arrears. The court found an unexplained two-year delay by the authorities and directed payment of interest at 9% for that period, with statutory interest on gratuity.

What did the court decide?

Interest at 9% from 24.11.2017 to 22.06.2019 on Group Insurance, Leave Encashment and salary arrears; statutory interest under Section 7(3A) Gratuity Act on gratuity; payment within six weeks.

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P.Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:604

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31361 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa And Pusthar And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Manendra Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is with regard to delay in grant of post retiral dues to the petitioner which were admissible to his late wife who was working on the post of "Mukhya Sewika" in district Lakhimpur Kheri, who died on 30.10.2017 due to illness.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that wife of petitioner was working on the post of Mukhya Sewika and died during her service. It is on the death of wife of petitioner that petitioner became entitled to receive her service benefits including Gratuity, Insurance, Leave Encashment and Arrears of salary etc. and had moved an application before the competent authority on 24.11.2017 for grant of same.

¶9

It has been next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is only on 22.06.2019 that the petitioner was directed to submit succession certificate in support of his claim. On receipt of letter dated 22.06.2019, the petitioner moved an application before the Court of competent jurisdiction for grant of succession certificate, which was granted in favour of petitioner on 165.04.2021. The petitioner presented the succession certificate to the authorities and after processing his claim, the amount of Gratuity was paid to him on 22.11.2021, Leave Encashment on 28.07.2021, Rs.170992 was paid as arrears of salary, on 30.10.2021 amount of Group Insurance was paid.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was undue delay on the part of the respondents in processing the claim and has consequently has made a prayer for grant of 9% interest on the delayed payment of the aforesaid amounts.

¶11

The respondents on the other hand have opposed the writ petition. It has been submitted that wife of petitioner who was posted on the post of Mukhya Sewika had died on 30.07.2017 and application of petitioner was duly processed and presented for the first time before the District Programme Officer on 09.10.2018. In this regard it was stated that Joint Development Project Officer, did not submit or informed the authorities about the representation given by the petitioner. Subsequently, the District Programme Officer found certain errors which were sought to be rectified and again it was submitted on 21.12.2018 before the Joint Development Officer, who inturn called for report from the authority concerned. It was at this stage that the petitioner was informed with regard to requirement of submitting succession certificate.

¶12

The petitioner without any demur moved an application before the competent Court for seeking succession certificate which process took nearly two years and was finally prepared on 16.04.2021 and submitted to the authorities for processing claim of petitioner.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there is no satisfactory explanation is coming forth for not processing claim of petitioner from 24.11.2017 to 22.06.2019 i.e. for period of two years. In case there was any requirement for submission of succession certificate, the authorities should have informed the petitioner about the same at the earliest and not after lapse of two years. More than two years time was taken by the respondents to pass necessary orders and the succession certificate was prepared on 16.04.2021. Within a few months of submission of succession certificate, the respondents have made payment of the dues of the late wife of petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, undoubtedly this Court finds that there is delay of two years in processing the claim of petitioner and the State cannot be held liable for the time consumed in preparation of succession certificate and it seems that within a few months of submission of succession certificate payment of post retiral dues of late wife of petitioner was made to the petitioner. It is for the period of two years that no cogent explanation is given by the respondents and accordingly, there is no reason as to why they shall be made liable to pay interest for delay in grant of the admissible dues to petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, present writ petition is partly allowed .

¶16

The respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% to the petitioner for the delay caused in processing the claim of late wife of petitioner from 24.11.2017 till 22.06.2019, for

¶17

payment of Group Insurance, Leave Encashment and Arrears of salary. With regard to Gratuity, the petitioner would be entitled to statutory interest as provided for under Section 7(3a) of the Gratuity Act.

¶18

Let aforesaid exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.1.2025 A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Bal Vikas Sewa and Pusthar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Vimla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Shashi Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sarita vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others