LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-209

RAM NARAIN TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 31, 2006
RAM NARAIN TRIPATHI, BALDEO PRASAD TRIPATHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Suresh Singh, the learned Counsel appearing for the Zila Panchayat, Jhansi and the learned Standing Counsel for the other respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the retirement benefits which had not been paid to him for almost 12 years. It transpires, that the petitioner retired on 31.1.1991 from the post of an Executive Officer in Zila Parishad, Jhansi. Upon his retirement after 40 years of service, he was entitled for the post retirement benefits, namely, pension, gratuity, etc. These legitimate dues and benefits were, however, not paid nor released by the respondents for reasons best known to them. The petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7449 of 1996 which was disposed of with a direction to the authority to decide the representation and the claim of the petitioner. The authority, while deciding the claim of the petitioner, admitted that he was liable to be paid the pension and other retirement benefits but pleaded their helplessness in releasing the money, on the ground of financial constraints. It further transpires, that the petitioner moved a contempt application. During the pendency of these proceedings, a sum of Rs. 2.85 lacs was paid on various dates, i.e., between 3.5.2002 and 29.10.2002 towards gratuity, pension and arrears of dearness allowance. Since interest was not paid by the respondents, consequently, the present writ petition was filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was entitled for the payment of the post retirement benefits and the only ground for the non-payment was the lack of finance. The petitioner submitted that in view of the admitted position and, in view of the fact that the fault clearly lay with the respondents, the petitioner was, therefore, entitled for interest @ 18% per annum on the belated payments.