BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the retired employees of the State are not treated in the spirit that they have given their entire life of service to the State. Repeated observations of the Supreme Court 1994 (6) SCC 589 - R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection. 1985 (1) SCC 429 - State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair. to the effect that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but have become, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. The current market rate is also settled by the Supreme Court in the above decisions at 18% per annum. This is further reinforced by the circular (Ext. P2) issued by the Government of Kerala specifically emphasising yet another aspect that the documents necessary for the sanctioning of pension and gratuity should be prepared sufficiently earlier so that payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government servant on the date he retires or on the following day. It is yet crystal clear from the said circular that all pension sanctioning authorities and heads of departments are requested to strictly follow the instructions so far issued and to settle pensionary claims without delay. It has also been pointed out that if in any case Government is forced to pay penal interest due to specific lapse on the part of any officer, he will be held responsible for it and the amount will be recouped from him. Further it is emphasised that the liability to pay penal interest on the dues should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement In other words it is specified by the Government of Kerala in the above circular itself that the last limit for settlement is to be understood as two months from the date of retirement.

(2.) What appears through the material on record of this petition would have to be described as the attitude of the State to hoodwink the decisions of the Supreme Court and its own circular, much more so with the clear position spelling out the spirit of the situation that the retired Government servant should be allowed to lead peaceful retired life, have been given in an indecent go by

(3.) The petitioner retired as Special grade Executive Officer of the Panchayat Department having retired on and from June 30, 1987. Upto this date all ended well and there was no whisper with regard to any difficulty with regard to his retirement and payment of dues as a result thereof. This will be seen as a strayed situation through the communication (Ext P1) dt. June 26, 1987 whereby the Head of the Department (District Panchayat Officer - respondent No.3) informed the Accountant General, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.4) to the effect that a pension of Rs.698/ - p.m. with effect from July 1, 1987 and a DCRG of Rs.23,760/- is sanctioned to the petitioner who was then due to retire by the end of the month on June 30, 1987. The said . communication also fixes a family pension of Rs.346/- p.m. upto June 24, 1984 and Rs.173/- thereafter as sanctioned to his wife. It is with this clear cut endorsement the Head of the Department submitted the pension papers with the service book of the petitioner with a request that pensionary claims be admitted at the earliest.