PRATIBHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the daughter of Mr. S. K. Dwivedi, who was working as Assistant District Inspector of Schools. The petitioner as a legal heir claimed the retrial dues of Mr. S. K. Dwivedi. It is not disputed that gratuity was granted in her favour in the year 1995. The cavil came up when the question of payment of GPF arose inasmuch as the Accountant General of the State of M.P. insisted for production of a succession certificate. The petitioner produced the succession certificate some time in September, 2001. Submission of Mr. D. K. Dixit is that though an order was obtained and produced before the competent authority yet the amount was not released.

(2.) SOUNDING a contra note, it has been contended by Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate that production of succession certificate was imperative and the petitioner acceded to the same and thereafter there was some procedural delay as a consequence of which the GPF amount amounting to Rs. 79,777/ - was not paid immediately and has already been paid on 27 -4 -2004. It is submitted by Mr. S. K. Yadav that the interest has been calculated on the payable sum and the amount has been paid to the petitioner and hence, there can be no grievance. The aforesaid submission, though looks quite attractive, yet there has been an old saying that all that glitters is not gold. By this innovative submission Mr. Yadav has tried to cross the bridge of delay which has been caused by the respondents despite the factum that the succession certificate was made available to them in September, 2001. True it is, the GPF amount carries interest, but one cannot oblivious of the fact that the rate of interest may be one thing but it is another thing not to have the money in hand.

(3.) THE petitioner came to this Court in 2004. Possibly she thought that the time had been arrested. The learned counsel submitted with vehemence as if the petitioner has a right embedded and the delay does not defeat justice. Hence, I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. D. K. Dixit with regard to the Olympian claim that the interest should be given from 1987 at the prevalent rate. What shocks this Court is the attitude of the authorities. They did wake up after two and half years. Hence, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner shall be paid a sum of Rs. 10,500/ - in addition to what has been paid. The said sum shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. It is also directed that the said sum be paid so that the authority would realize that when right document was produced as per the desire or direction, they were required to act. It is interesting to know the movement. After the notice was issued amount was paid as if they were awaiting for order of this Court. This kind of propensity creates a dent in the administration and the concept of credibility gets lost. Sooner it is realized, better it is. Hence, the direction for further sum.