GODENATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Satyendra Sing, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1, and 3 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi for the respondent no. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided under the Rules of the Court at this Stage.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Boarwell Technician in the department of Minor Irrigation and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1995. Towards payment of retiral benefits and provident fund, the respondents, though paid other dues and 90% of G.P.F. amount but balance 10% G.P.F. amount was not paid to the petitioner for more than a decade despite several representations and hence, having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by means of the present writ petition.

(3.) 11.2004 to the respondent no. 2 whereupon an authority letter dated 21.12.204 was issued for payment of Rs.32,073/-. However, it appears that the said payment was not made by the departmental authorities and when the matter came to the notice of respondent no. 2, it issued another authority letter dated 19.6.32008 to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, District Deoria with a copy thereof to the Treasury Officer, Deoria and to the petitioner and in this way, the payment has been made. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any valid reason or justification, the 10% amount of G.P.F. has been paid to him after such a long time and that too without any interest on the due amount on and after January, 1997. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled for suitable penal interest for the laxity shown by the respondents and the writ petition deserves to be allowed with exemplary cost.