RAGHUNATH PRASAD UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri U. C. Misra for respondent No. 4. Learned standing counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 1.11.1963 as Accountant In Nagar Panchayat, Fatehabad, District Agra. He retired on 31.12.2001. By this writ petition, he has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to pay post retiral benefits including gratuity, G.P.F., arrears of revised salary, leave encashment, bonus, dearness allowance, group insurance policy and pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. It Is contended that the petitioner made several representations, first of which was given on 25.2,2002 to the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehabad, district Fatehabad but the amount was not paid. Counsel for petitioner states that no dues certificate was issued to the petitioner, and that no disciplinary case is pending against him. The Assistant Director, Local Bodies Accounts Examination Department, U. P., Agra sanctioned the payment of pension, and gratuity on 28.6.2002 by which the competent authority. i.e, the Nagar Panchayat Fatehabad, was directed to pay to the petitioner Rs. 84,720 as gratuity, and Rs. 1,000 as pension per month. The petitioner, however, was not paid the amount and that apart from the gratuity and arrears of pension, the respondents are also liable to pay Rs. 1,20,790 as salary for 24 months, from 1st October, 1997 to June, 1998, 1st December, 2000 to 31st December, 2001 ; Rs. 11,145 towards G.P.F,; Rs. 34,606 towards leave encashment, Rs. 10,805 dearness allowance from July, 1990 to November, 2001 ; Rs. 14,000 as revised salary, Rs. 21,000 as bonus, and Rs. 5,000 as group insurance amount.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit of Sri Balbir Singh Yadav, Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Shamshabad, district Agra, who is also looking after the work of Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Fatehabad, district Agra it is stated in para 3H, that an enquiry in respect of embezzlement of Rs. 1,60,000 is still pending against the petitioner, which was started on the basis of a complaint dated 28.2.2002 made by the then President of Nagar Panchayat, Fatehabad, to the Chief Secretary. The State Government desired the District Magistrate, Agra, to conduct an enquiry within 15 days. In para 3J, it is stated that the enquiry is still pending due to non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner. In case any recovery is ordered in respect of allegations made in the complaint dated 28.2.2001, the recovery of the same shall not be possible if all the retiral benefits are paid to the petitioner. This is also one of the reason for non-payment of retiral dues.