STATE OF KERALA Vs. PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PENSION is no longer a payment by way of compassion; and gratuity is not a payment by way of gratis. They are valuable rights, and property, in the hands of the Government servant who had served the State during the best part of his life. Such rights are not ordinarily forfeitable. (See Dayal Saran Sanan v. Shanbhu Nath Mukherjee, (1980)2 SCC. 25 ). And in the payment of pension, the courts would not tolerate a discriminatory treatment. (See D. S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India, AIR. 1983 SC. 130 ).

(2.) A necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues of a Government servant who has retired from service cannot be over-emphasised. to him, the shadows of dusk lengthen into darkness. His necessity is acute; his impatience at the delay is easily understandable. Those who still remain in service, however, are unappreciative of the hardship of the retired man; the green leaves mockingly laugh at the yellow ones fallen on the ground.

(3.) IT may be noted in this connection that the lower appellate court has granted a decree for Rs. 683. 44 which represents the liquidated damages for a period of twenty one months, which according to that court, represent the period of unjustified delay caused by the District treasury Officer, Ernakulam. The costs, allowed were restricted to the amount proportionate to his success. In so holding the court below referred to the provisions contained in R. 186 of the Kerala Treasury Code, Volume I. The finding was that there was an unjustified lapse on the part of the Treasury Officer to perform the duty cast on him as enjoined under the above rule.