DHARMA NARAYAN DAS Vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The position as of today is that only remaining part of the retiral benefit of Rs. 54,449/- and the remaining part of Gratuity is for a sum of Rs. 7,500.00 are unpaid as per the memorandum of the Treasury Officer dated 24.1.2003. Therefore, the said sum will be released within a period of seven days from the date of communication of this order without fail by the appropriate Authority.

(2.) The further point is in respect of computation of interest and payment of the same as well as direction upon the appropriate Authority to make an enquiry about the persons concerned responsible for causing delay in making payment of retiral benefit. I have passed two orders in this case and the tenor of the orders is to send the persons to civil prison even by issuance of Suo Motu Contempt Rule for non-compliance of the order.

(3.) However, it is an established position by now that an enormous delay has been caused in respect of paying the retiral benefit to a School teacher who was forced to file this Writ petition in 1993. A Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 3513 (2) (Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and Others ) speaks that when there is absolutely no reason or justification for not making payments of retiral benefits, a simple interest @ 18% p.a. with effect from the date of retirement will the date of payment will be given. I also find in 1985 (1) SCC 429 : [ 1985(1) SLR 750 (SC)] (State of Kerala and Others Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair ), in 1994 (6) SCC 589 : [1994(5) SLR 616 (SC)] (R. Kapur Vs. Director of Inspection (Printing and Publication) Income Tax and Another), in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2433: [200](3) SLR 735 (SC)] (Gorakhpur University and Others Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Others), that Courts have always taken an uniform strict stand about release of the retiral benefit at the earliest. It has to be so and there cannot be any departure from such well established principle that the person having been retired from the service is entitled for the retiral benefit as a matter of right. Similarly, the person who is responsible for not releasing such fund is no less than a criminal committing a crime in the Society and in that case, I am in association with the Gujarat High Court judgment reported in 2002 LAB. I.C. 734 (B.K. Dudani Vs. State of Gujarat & Others) held that an enquiry can be made by the appropriate authority against the responsible persons or person. I pass order to that extent. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, it is virtually hand made of justice since there is no specific rule. However, since the Supreme Court already held rate of interest would be 18% p.a. that would be appropriate rate of interest. 1, therefore, hold even if a liberal view is taken, the simple rate of interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of retirement will the payment will be the appropriate in the instant case. It is to be remembered that withholding pension being right of a citizen is unjust enrichment, if not more as said before. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the Court to direct immediate payment of retrial benefit. However, since Mr. Dasgupta appearing for the State respondents contended that delay in making payment of the retrial benefit was actually caused due to the lapses on the part of the School authorities, I hold that as and when the enquiry will be held, such persons will not be left from an appropriate enquiry and investigation will also be made about their activities. If ultimately it is found that such persons are really responsible, then the amount on account of payment of interest will be recovered from their salaries and perquisites or any other assets holding in their names.