LOHIT CHANDRA KALITA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application depicting the callous and sheer negligent attitude of the State Government towards its retired employee. It has become almost the practice of the State of Assam to forget its retired employees. It does not pay the retirement dues in time and throws the employees to face pitiable situation. They do not determine pension of the retired employee in accordance with the rules in time, as provided in Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969. It is being seen by this court that the matter relating to payment of pension is being delayed by the State of Assam without rhyme and reason as a matter of course, without any application of mind whatsoever they sleep over the claim/right of the employees though rule requires that even two years before the retirement of the person according to rule 95 they are to process all papers relating to the payment of pension whch is necessary so that payment of pension may be given in a prompt manner. Rule 95 is quoted below :

(2.) Here in this case petitioner retired from service on 6.7.89 and he was paid pension only in the year 1995. Further an amount of Rs 49,301/- deducted from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner on the ground that during the service tenure of the petitioners, petitioner made some overpayment. Petitioner hearin filed C.R No. 2723/94 challenging the order of retention of this amount of Rs 49,301 and odd and civil Rule was disposed of by this court on 30.3.95. Thereafter the amount was paid on 10.4.97 taking almost two years for the payment of this money. This writ petition has been filed for payment of interest on this amount as it is delayed payment. Law on this point has been settled by the two decisions of the apex court in AIR 1995 SC 356 in State of Kerala & others V. M. Padmanabhan Nair where in the Supreme Court had pointed out as follows :

(3.) To the same effect there is a decision of the apex court in 1996-10 SCC 297 Bau Nath Gupta Vs State of Bihar & ors wherein in paragraph 9 the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows. That if Goverment is responsible for the delay, necessarily the appellant would be entitled to the payment of interest on the delayed payment. Here in this case there is absolutely no explanation with regard to the delay from 1995 to 1997. At least for this period the petitioner is entitled to interest Accordingly I direct from 13.4.95 that is two months after the judgment of the High Court till the date of payment the rate of interest shall be 12% from the date. The amount shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount of interest shall be 18%. Further the petitioner claims that he has not been paid leave encashment benefit. That also if not paid shall be paid according to Rules. The petitioner may obtain the certified copy of judgment and may produce it before the authority.