KURUVILLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from service on 30-6-1991 while he was working as a Primary School Assistant in an aided school. Since his pensionary benefits were not disbursed, he filed Ext. P. 1 representation before the second respondent. Since there was no action on Ext. P1, he filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the pensionary benefits due to him with 12% interest. During the pendency of the original petition, pensionary benefits were disbursed to the petitioner. Therefore, he limits his relief to interest on the delayed payment of pension.

(2.) The stand taken by the first respondent who is the head of office is that had the petitioner submitted his pension papers atleast one year prior to his date of retirement, the delay could have been avoided. According to the first respondent, the petitioner is governed by R.110 of Part.3 K.S.R. which says that every Government employee shall submit a formal application for pension in Form II and that such an application for pension shall be submitted at least one year in advance of the date of his anticipatory retirement. But then, the first respondent, according to me, has lost sight of the provisions contained in R.115-A of Part.3 K.S.R. which provides: "as the first step. the head of office (in this case the A.E.O.) shall send to every non gazetted employee a copy of Form II (formal application for pension) one year in advance of the date on which the Government employee attains the age of superannuation or before the date of his anticipated retirement, if earlier, requiring him to return it duly filled in along with necessary documents within a period of 3 months, but in no case later than the actual date of retirement. On a combined reading of R.110 and 115 of Part.3 K.S.R. it is clear that it is incumbent on the first respondent as the head of office to forward to the petitioner Form II application one year in advance of the date on which the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. Admittedly, the respondents have no case that they have complied with the mandatory requirements of R.115 of Part.3 K.S.R. On the contrary, the stand taken by the third respondent is that the delay has been occasioned on account of the laxity on the part of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent the stand taken is that the petitioner should have initiated action atleast one year in advance, i.e. before 30-6-1990. Having regard to the mandatory provision contained in R.115 of Part.3 K.S.R. I am not satisfied that the stand taken by the respondents is correct. Going by the provisions of R.115, it is upto the head of office, namely, the first respondent herein to send to the petitioner a copy of Form II application for pension one year inn advance of the date on which the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. Since there is no material on record to show that the requirements of the Rule has been complied with, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the " delay that has already crept-in in the matter of disbursal of pension to him. Had it been the case of the first respondent that he did in fact complied with the requirements of R.115 by forwarding to the petitioner a copy of Form II application for pension one year in advance of the date on which the petitioner attains the age of superannuation, the position would have been different. As already stated, no materials are placed before me nor is the file available for verification as to the date on which the Form II application was actually sent to the petitioner.