QAMARU NISHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the second respondent, namely, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farukhabad, to pay the balance of the death-cum-post retiral dues on account of the services rendered by her spouse and for a decision on a claim for the payment of interest for a delay of 29 years till the payment of the retiral dues. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 2 December 2014 on the ground that (i) the appellant has not indicated what is the balance of death-cum-post retiral benefits; (ii) the claim having been set up in the writ petition in 2014 is barred by laches; and (iii) the appellant is not entitled to interest on the amount, if it is due, since the appellant is at fault for not having approached the Court at the relevant point of time.

(2.) The appellant in the writ proceedings averred that her spouse was working as a peon in the establishment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Farukhabad and died in 1983 during the tenure of his service. It was her case that after the death of her husband, she had fulfilled all necessary requirements for the payment of the retiral dues, in spite of which, no payments have been made to her even in respect of the admitted amount of GPF, pension, group insurance policy etc. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was disposed of on 30 July 2008 (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35682 of 2008) with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. Though the appellant moved a representation on 4 November 2008, it was not decided, after which, she was constrained to move a contempt application. At that stage in 2011, an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- was paid to her, as stated in paragraph 21 of the writ petition. The grievance of the appellant was that even 29 years after the death of her spouse, full payment of the death-cum-retiral benefits have not been made, as a result of which, she was entitled to the payment of the balance amount together with interest. The appellant, in support of her contention, annexed at Annexure 4, relevant details in regard to the payments made under the directions of the Treasury Officer, Gorakhpur.

(3.) On these facts, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge was clearly not justified in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay and laches. Payment of retiral benefits, including benefits which accrue on account of the death of an employee, is not a matter of largesse or charity but constitutes a vested right on account of the years of service rendered as an employee of the State. The facts on the record would make it clear that it was the State which took a long period of 29 years to make payment of the retiral dues. As pleaded by the appellant, an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- was paid to her in 2011 though the death of the employee had occurred in 1983. The grievance of the appellant is that this did not represent the full amount of the payments due and outstanding towards death-cum-retiral benefits. The learned Single Judge has erred in finding fault of the appellant for not specifying what were the exact balance dues. As a matter of fairness, it was for the State to indicate in the form of a computation, the dues as computed and to which the appellant was entitled and that the entirety of the dues had been paid. This ought to have been placed on the record before the learned Single Judge. In any event having due regard to the facts of this case, it was the duty of the State to explain why no payment had been made for a period of 29 years since the date of death of the employee.