KEWAL VASUDEVA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.1992 while holding the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Gharota, District Gurdaspur, after he had rendered 35 years of service. He claimed pension, gratuity and other retirement dues but the same were not paid to him despite his representation. After he had served a notice of demand for justice (Annexure P-3), the respondents called upon the petitioner to file an affidavit for the purpose of releasing 100 per cent provisional pension and gratuity. Even then the respondents did not release post retirement dues of the petitioner and this has compelled him to file a writ petition in the High Court. Petitioner's plea is that withholding of his full pension, gratuity and other retirement dues amounts to deprivation of property right, which is protected by Article 300-A of the Constitution. Respondents have stated that 90 per cent of the General Provident Fund and 1 per cent of the provisional pension has been released to the petitioner. According to them, delay in payment of retirement dues has been occasioned on account of late submission of affidavit by the petitioner regarding recovery of house-rent. Another reason assigned for the delay is late issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' by the Punjab Vigilance Department. Further, assertion of the respondents is that the petitioner's service-book was misplaced in transit and, therefore, a duplicate service-book had to be prepared.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that for delayed payment of pension, gratuity and other retirement dues, the petitioner is entitled to interest. He further argued that the petitioner is entitled to issue a writ of mandamus for commutation of his pension. Mrs. Charu Tuli argued that payment of pension, gratuity etc. was delayed on account of petitioner's fault in not submitting full documents. She, however, conceded that the petitioner had filed all the requisite documents on 11.3.1993.

(3.) From the admitted facts, which have been brought on record by the parties, it is clear that the petitioner retired from the service on 31.10.1992 and payment of pension, gratuity etc. has been delayed even after the petitioner had filed his affidavit, and requisite documents by 11.3.1993. It can, thus, be said that on his part the petitioner had completed all formalities which could entitle him to claim pension, gratuity etc. Delay in the receipt of the 'No Dues Certificate' by the Punjab Vigilance Department cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He had no role to pay in the issue of 'No Dues Certificate' by the Punjab, Vigilance Department. It was the duty of the departmental authorities to get such a certificate from the Punjab Vigilance Department. It is, thus, clear that for no fault of his, the petitioner has been deprived of post retirement benefits.