LAWS(APH)-1997-4-50

EDWARD THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER GUNTUR

Decided On April 25, 1997
EDWARD THOMAS Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner before this Court retired on 31-12-1994 from the post of Head-Master in Luthern Model High School, Guntur. However, the pensionary benefits to which he was entitled were not paid to him for a considerably long time after he retired which eventually necessitated the filing of the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the pension and the gratuity were .provisionally paid to the petitioner by the respondents in pursuance of the interim directions given by the Court separately for pension and gratuity. However, even till today the amounts finally payable to the petitioner as pension and gratuity have not been worked out and not paid in spite of the matter being vigorously pursued with the concerned authorities by the petitioner. These facts are not in dispute. However, the respondents, five in number, are throwing blame on each other for the delay in finalising the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. Since the matter is pending only for finalising the dues payable to the petitioner, the writ petition could straightaway be allowed by giving a direction to the concerned respondents to finalise the pensionary dues on or before 31st May, 1997 and in fact the payment should be released to the petitioner on or before 31st May, 1997 without fail. The respondents shall become liable to be subjected to adverse consequences in the event of any failure on their part to comply with the said direction.

(2.) Ordinarily, the writ petition would have been disposed of after giving the aforesaid direction; but for the fact that the respondents seem to be indulging in throwing blame on one another for this inordinate delay of more than two years and three months and they seem to be making the petitioner run from pillar to post for getting his pensionary dues finalised. The Supreme Court came very heavily on the concerned authorities of the Government in a similar situation of inordinate delay in finalising the pensionary dues in State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, AIR 1985 SC 356. The Supreme Court deplored callousness on the part of the concerned authorities as expressed in Para 3 of the judgment which is reproduced below :-

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioner has not ventured to go beyond seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the principles of natural justice, otherwise this Court would have found it difficult to refrain from allowing interest at a rate not less than 12% per annum, as done in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court.