MANSUKHLAL P UNADKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has retired from Government service on 1-6-1983 has been paid pension only in February 1988 and that too under the interim orders of this Court. The petitioner claims that he should be paid interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of pension relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of O. P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2257. Para 23 of that judgment reads as follows:

(2.) On behalf of the Government Mis. Doshit submitted that the delay is not due to any fault on the part of the Government; there was a query raised by the Accountant General respondent No. 4 and the petitioner bad produced the certificate of last pay drawn very late and there was some period of absence which was not regularised ant settled and therefore the delay has taken place and as soon as the Accountant General accorded the sanction State Government has immediately made payment. Even though there may be some dispute about the actual amount of pension to be decided finally there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner was entitled to pension and dues pesionary benefits. Even though there might be some uncertainty about the last pay drawn in July 1983 or in January 1982 there is no dispute that till 31/03/1981 the petitioner was in service apt on 1 he was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation and he was repatriated on July 1 1982 From July 1 198 2/01/1983 the petitioner states that he remained without any posting and the respondent has pointed out that the petitioner was given posting orders in September and December 1982 and the petitioner did not report for duty. Even after joining on 13/01/1983 the petitioner had remained absent for most of the period and that absence bad also to be considered and regularised so as to work out the last pay drawn and until that was done according to the respondents pension could not be calculated and paid earlier.

(3.) There is no satisfactory explanation for such a long delay of four years. Moreover the reasons for delay do not justify delay in payment of the whole pension. If there was difficulty in final calculation at least part of the pension could Save been released on an ad hoc or provisional basis and there was no justification whatsoever for with- holding or delaying the payment of the entire amount for a long period of four years. There is no dispute that the petitioner retired in July 1983 and the pension had become due to him and that he did not receive tEat pension till February 1988. During this period the amount that was payable to the petitioner has remained with the State and therefore the respondent-State cannot escape from the liability to make payment of interest on the said amount. Since the petitioner retired from July 1963 a reasonable period of six months can be excluded but from 1/01/1984 till 31/12/1987 the petitioner must be paid interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amounts of pension paid late. The petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of this amount and the respondent-State has retained this amount and therefore it would be just and equitable to direct the respondent State to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the commuted pension and gratuity and on monthly amounts of pension from 1/01/1984