DEV VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Chief Engineer in the Irrigation Department. He retired on 31.7.1998. THE Chief Engineer (Eastern Ganga) Department of Irrigation, Moradabad wrote a letter on 3.10.1998 to the Chief Accounts Officer (Pension Section) in the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Department of Irrigation, U. P., Lucknow for payment of petitioner's post retiral benefits. It was mentioned in this letter that the post retiral benefits were (a) Monthly Pension of Rs. 8,194, (b) Gratuity Rs. 3,14,177 and (c) Commutation Rs. 4,11,455. On 31.10.1998 provisional pension of Rs. 8,194 per month was sanctioned, but post-retiral benefits of the petitioner were not released. THErefore, the petitioner made a representation for payment of gratuity, insurance etc. and requested for issuance of no objection certificate. Even he met personally the Engineer-in-Chief (Western Canals), Department of Irrigation, Lucknow on 24.8.1999 and requested for payment of his gratuity and other post retiral benefits. THE Engineer-in-Chief directed the petitioner to fill the bond for payment of provisional gratuity. THE petitioner filled the bond. THE Engineer-in-Chief (Western Canals) granted permission on 18.12.1999 for payment of provisional gratuity amounting to Rs. 2,25,000. THE petitioner received the provisional gratuity amount in December, 1999 after about 17 months of his retirement. In the bond which the petitioner had filled it was provided that if any loss of amount was pointed out by the Government against the petitioner up to two years from the date of his retirement, then the same could be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. No recovery order was passed against the petitioner by the respondents till 31.7.2000. On 21.6.2001 the Finance Controller in the office of Engineer-in-Chief sanctioned the post retiral benefits to the petitioner (a) Monthly pension Rs. 8,200, (b) Gratuity Rs. 3,39,191 and (c) Commutation Rs. 4,11,706. It was also mentioned in the footnote that according to the Government order dated 28.11.2000 Rs. 44,173 was being withheld.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the recovery notice dated 19.10.2002 issued by the respondents and has prayed that gratuity amount withheld by the respondents be released along with 18% per annum interest and the same interest be paid to the petitioner for delayed payment of gratuity.

(3.) WE have heard Sri K. B. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Agarwal learned Additional Advocate General and Sri Peeyush Shukla learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Sri Peeyush Shukla has also produced the records before us.