LAWS(J&K)-2003-7-12

SANSAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF J AND K

Decided On July 19, 2003
SANSAR CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF J AND K Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have referred in sufficient detail to the Rules and instructions which prescribe the time schedule for the various steps to be taken in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits.This we have done to remind the variois G overnment departments of their duties in initiating various steps at least two years in advance of the date of retirement. If the rules/instructions are followed strictly, much of the litigation can be avoided and retired Government Servants will not feel harassed because, after all, grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the Government servant. Government is obliged to follow the rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and spirit. Delay in settlement of the retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occuring even in regard to family pensions fore which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In case where a retired Government servant claims interest for delayed payment, the court can certainly keep in mind the time -schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. The above observations were made by their lordships of the supreme court in case entitled Dr. Uma Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1212. The petitioner retired from the post of Nursing Orderly on 31.12.1997, after attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, but retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been settled so far. The petitioner thus has filed this petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY at the time of retirement the petitioner was serving as a Nursing Orderly in Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The petitioner initially was appointed as laboratory Bearer on 4.2.1962, a class IV post, carrying the payscale of Rs. 25 -l -30(Old).The post of Nursing Orderly also carries the same pay scale and the nature of duties of both the posts were identical. When the pension case was submitted to respondent No. 5, Accountant General, the office of the Accountant General vide letter No. PWRJI/SIE/97 -98/3003 -04 dated 29.1.1998 raised an objection and the Medical Suprintendent Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar was asked

(3.) DESPITE the abovesaid clarification, the pension case of the petitioner was not cleared. When the petitioner represented, the Government vide letter No. H.268/98 -NG dated 27.1.1999 wrote to Director Health Services Jammu to furnish a copy of Accountant General's abovesaid letter dated 29.1.1998. Thereafter nothing has been done in the matter.