ARUNA DHOSE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND of the petitioner, Sri B. M. Dhose was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the service of the State Government. He was compulsorily retired by the Government of U. P. by order dated 7-11-1975. Against the order of compulsory retirement, he filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow which was dismissed on 18-1-1994. Thereafter, he died on 1-5-1995.

(2.) ALTER his retirement the petitioner husband raised his claim for pension and other post retirement benefits. But no action was taken m that regard by the Government. It was only on 9-6-1982 that the Government passed an order directing withholding of the gratuity and for payment of 90% pension. In accordance with the above order, 90% pension was paid to the petitioner's husband. But it was only on 21-7-1995 that the petitioner, who is widow of Sri B. M. Dhose, was paid the remaining pension and the gratuity. As the pension and gratuity were paid to the petitioner without any interest, she made representation for payment of interest. In Para 23 of the petition it has been stated that even the D I. G. Police (Administration) recommended to the Government for payment of interest to the petitioner, but it did not yield lany result. Not having succeeded in getting the interest from the Government, the petitioner has filed this petitioner for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay her interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 8-11-1975 to 21-7-1995, compoundable every year.

(3.) IN the instant case the petitioner's husband retired in 1975 but he was not paid any retiral benefits after his retirement. Although neither any criminal and/or departmental proceeding w4s pending at the time of his retirement nor any such proceeding was initiated thereafter but even than 90% pension was paid to him pursuant to an order dated 9-6-1982, i. e. , after about seven years of his retirement. The remaining pension and gratuity was paid to the petitioner in 1995 after her husband's death. There is, thus, undue delay and negligence on the part of the Government in making payment of post retirement benefits to the petitioner's husband and to the petitioner after his death. Not only that there is no plausible explanation for delayed payment in the instant case, but the respondents even failed to show cause before this court in spite of the order parsed to the effect more than once.