HAJI ANAYATULLAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was working as Works Supervisor in the office of Executive Engineer R&B Division-II, Kargil. While reaching superannuation retired on 1.3.1990. The papers for grant of pensionery benefits were processed but were finally settled after 18 years. The pensionery benefit as were due have been paid to him but his grievance is that the interest payable such amount for the withheld period of 18 years has not been paid to him so has filed the instant petition.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 to 4 in their reply have made the position quite clear and have given cogent reasons for the delay.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the respondents, on humanitarian grounds in relaxation of rules after long persuasions pension was sanctioned otherwise petitioner did not possess the qualifying service for grant of pension. Explaining the said position, it is stated that the petitioner was brought on regular establishment but in view of his lesser service was not qualifying for pension under Civil Service rules. The pension case of the petitioner was forwarded to the respondent Accountant General well before the date of superannuation but the Accountant General on 29.6.1990 made it clear that the petitioner was not entitled to pension in view of lesser qualifying service but again the case was submitted to the Accountant General after recording reply vis-a-vis objections as were raised and in the meantime matter was taken up with District Superintending Engineer, PWD, Kargil on 3.4.1991 for declaring the petitioner permanent on the post of Works Supervisor although he was declared as quasi permanent by the District Superintending Engineer on 14.12.1990 to which petitioner was not entitled for having less than five years of service. Then the District Superintending Engineer declared the petitioner permanent with effect from 1.4.1986, same was not within his competence but the respondents took various measures and referred the case to respondent No. 5 (Accountant General) on 14.5.1991 but again respondent No. 5 returned the pension case on 25.11.1991 questioning therein competence of District Superintending Engineer PWD, Kargil to declare the petitioner permanent in relaxation of rules because such powers only lies with the Government. Again respondents took up the matter on 21.7.1995 for early settlement of petitioner's pension case but again with a negative reply to the effect that the petitioner being not entitled to pensionary benefits so respondent No. 5 accordingly closed the case on 31.10.1995. Again the case was re-opened by the other respondents in the year 2007 with a request to respondent No. 5 that the matter has been referred to Administrative Department and the action taken by District Superintending Engineer, PWD Kargil has been confirmed by the Government vide Govt. order No. 41-PW(R&B) of 2008 dated 28.1.2008.