SURENDRA KUMAR KAPOOR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has been instituted by the petitioner who is the son of deceased employee namely, Shravan Das Kapoor. The deceased employee who was serving as Naib Tahsildar died in harness on 19-6- 1975. The matter of payment of death-cum-retiral gratuity and arrears of salary dues is still mired and has not been settled ostensibly due to apathy and inaction on the part of the authorities concerned. The circumstances in this petition should be cited as to when the authorities choose to be unsympathetic they become insensate and unsympathetic to the point of cruelty. The authorities in the instant case do not seem to have been aroused out of their torpor despite lapse of 28 years. It is a matter of concern and the Court does not seem inclined to show any leniency towards the authorities to be found culpable of dereliction of duties statutorily assigned to them.

(2.) IN the instant petition, Shravan Kumar Kapoor, the deceased employee breathed his last on 19-6- 1975. It transpires from the record that the District Magistrate Bulandshahar sought succession certificate by means of letters dated 29-10-76 and 20-12-1977 and as a consequence, the petitioner furnished succession certificate dated 14-3-1980. It would further transpire that by means of order dated 29-10-1976, the petitioner was intimated that a sum of Rs. 14,859 towards arrears of salary and a further sum of Rs. 8,920 towards death cum retiral gratuity were payable. It would appear from the record that despite this order, the authorities prevaricated on payment of the aforestated amount on one pretext or the other and tired of dilly-dallying of the authorities, the petitioner ultimately knocked the door of this Court by means of the present petition instituted in the year 1988. This did not sound the end of the woes of the petitioner. On 5-8-1988, this Court granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit came to be filed within the time prescribed by the Court. Thereafter, the petition subsided in oblivion and it saw the light of the day on 31-10-1996 on which date, the Court passed interim mandamus enjoining respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner within a period of one month or to show cause from the date of production of certified copy of the order. This per-emptory order was neither observed in compliance not it elicited any counter affidavit under condition of the order. The matter is still mired in inaction of the authorities with no obviation to the sufferings of the petitioner.