LAXMI DEVI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner while serving on the post of Midwife and retired on 31.12.1988. Since the post retiral benefit was not paid to the petitioner, she has filed the present writ petition in April, 1992. For a petty long period counter- affidavit was not filed by the respondents and the matter was kept hanging in this Court for more than a decade. Ultimately an interim order dated 26.9.2003 was passed by this Court directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary and also pension to the petitioner within a period of 3 months. After passing of an interim order by this Court, respondent-machinery swung into action and appropriate steps were taken for payment of those retiral benefits. An affidavit dated 22.3.2004 has been filed indicating therein that interim order of this Court has been complied with and the petitioner has been paid post retiral benefits. The affidavit has been filed by Dr. M.P. Singh; Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi. The record shows that the cheques were issued and appropriate orders were passed to the petitioner for payment of post retiral benefits on 18.3.2004 and 19.3.2004. 'However, counter-affidavit does not disclose the specific reason as to why the petitioner was not paid post retiral benefit during the period commencing from 1989 to 2003. At the face of record there is serious negligence on the part of the opposite parties in making the payment of post retiral dues to the petitioner. There is nothing on the record which could have hamper the payment of post retiral benefits within reasonable period. The post retiral dues are not .bounty which the authorities can stop or refrain to make payment for any reason. The post retiral dues are the statutory rights of the employees which should be paid within reasonable period after retirement. The retiral dues are paid to the employees in lieu of long services rendered by them to the Society and Nation as a public servant of the State or country. It cannot be stopped except in accordance with law arid on reasonable ground. Learneed Counsel for the petitioner submits that since for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the post retiral dues were not paid, for about 14 years, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the amount paid to the petitioner in the month of March, 2004.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgments of this Court reported in (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1898, Jangi Singh v. State and Ors. and (1997) 3 UPLBEC 2119, General Manager, Telecom v. S. Srinivasan Rao and Ors., and in an unreported judgment of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40679 of 2000, Ram Chandra v. HP. Road Transport Corporation and Ors., decided on 25.2.2000. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has got weight and withholding of post retiral benefits for about 16 years is deprecated. The petitioner is entitled for interest on prevailing market rate. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed.