MUKTI NATH RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This case highlights the plight of hundreds of retired government employees, who are not paid pension and other retirement dues even for many years after retirement. It is distressing to note that desipite the judgment of this court in Ram Sewak Singh v. Accountant General, 1990 (2) UP LB EC 1027, and the anguish expressed by Honourable Mr. Justice Ganguly over this matter it does not seem to have had any salutory effect in the relevant officials who still remain as Callous and indifferent as they were before.

(2.) THE petitioner in the present case retired on 31-12-1981 from U. P. Government service as Technical Assistant in the PWD, but has yet not been paid any pension. He alleges that his [papers for pension, gratuity, G. P. F. etc. ought to have been sent to the Accountant General's Office six months before retirement, but were not sent. He made a representation on 29-8- 1983 and reminders on 3-10-83 and 11-1-84 to the Executive Engineer. THEreafter he received a letter dated 13-2-84 making certain allegations regarding some cement and steel issued to a contractor, and asking the petitioner to submit his reply within 3 days. Surprisingly enough the allegation was made more than 2 years after the petitioner's retirement. THE petitioner immediately sent his reply, and thereafter the matter appears to have been dropped.

(3.) THE facts disclosed in the writ petition are shocking. THE petitioners retired 10 years ago, but as yet he has not been paid his pension or retirement benefits. It is deeply regrettable that the Executive Engineer has not acted in a responsible manner. A senior officer is supposed to look after the interest of his subordinates. In particular he should have seen to it that the petitioner's papers were forwarded promptly to the Accountant Generals' office so that a retired person should get his pension etc. promptly. Instead, the Executive Engineer has procrastinated unnecessarily over the matter, and has caused needless harassment to the petitioner. THE result has been that the petitioner, who is now almc6t 70 years old, has obviously faced undesirable financial hardship. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, pension is a valuable right and not a bounty vide D. S. Nakara's case, AIR 1983 SC 130.