MUNNI DEVI Vs. NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The husband of the petitioner died on 12.9.2000. She alleges to have not been paid post retiral benefits of her late husband such as balance of bonus, encashment, 11 months arrears of pension, group insurance amount and arrears of revised pay scale w.e.f.1.1.1996 etc. by the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to pay her entire balance post retiral dues at the bank lending rate interest from the date it has become due or at 10% compound interest since the amount was kept by the respondents illegally with them. The counsel for the respondents placing reliance upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6.7.2006 passed in Special Appeal No.693 of 2006, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar and another Vs. Smt. Rajji submits that delay in payment was due to financial crunches and was not deliberate or willful and that in similar matters this Court has considered the question of rate of interest allowed simple interest at the lesser rate. The controversy in the Special Appeal was considered by the Court that-

(2.) He further submits that that the Nagar Nigam is already facing great hardship on account of financial constraint and thus it would be equitable in the interest of justice that the rate of interest may be at least lower and simple.

(3.) It is further submitted that in the backdrop of the financial condition of the Nagar Nigam grant of interest at the bank lending rate is highly excessive and would cause great hardship to the Nigam. No reasons appear to be explained by the respondents as to why the amount was illegally kept by them. The respondents are duty bound to pay the retiral dues of a retired employee when it becomes due. They cannot say that the department is facing great hardship on account of financial constraint as such though it has withheld the retiral dues illegally and utilized it for other purposes as well as has earned interest on it. The respondents cannot make windfall gain in this manner on the dues of the petitioner, which is in trust with them. The Court must also consider the loss and harassment of the poor employee who had been made to run from pillar to post and approach this Court to get an order for payment of his retiral dues.