ONKAR NATH GANJOO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Onkar Nath Ganjoo, a retired Assistant Engineer of the Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, claiming the amount of pension and gratuity which had been withheld. The pension amount now having been paid to the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition at the instance of this court, the only question which requires consideration is, whether any interest is payable to the petitioner for late payment of the pension amount.

(2.) The facts of the case are short and simple, yet, it gave rise to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner had been functioning as an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, in Mahi Project, Banswara from which he retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.5.1992, after serving the Government of Rajasthan for about 35 years. He worked diligently and to the satisfaction of his superior authorities and was never awarded any adverse remarks or any punishment during his entire service career. However, when he retired from the service of the Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, his pension papers and the amount of gratuity payable to him were not finalised for a long time, due to which he served a notice on the Department under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure . About six months thereafter on 20.10.1992, he received a copy of the communication from the Executive Engineer, Sagwara, which was addressed to the Director, Pension, forwarding the petitioner's pension case, giving remarks by way of an endorsement to the Chief Engineer, Mahi Project that an amount of Rs. 2,76,827.57 was outstanding against the petitioner, due to which the Pension Department would not be in a position to finalise the case till the advance shown against the petitioner's name was regularised. The Pension Department, therefore, sent back the case to the Executive Engineer, Mahi Sagwara Canal Division, Sagwara for clearing the advance shown against the name of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner readily submitted a detailed account of the aforesaid amount on 16.11.1992 (vide Ex. 4), wherein it was also stated that he has been representing even since 9.12.1991 that no amount was outstanding against him, but the Department of Irrigation failed to examine it and thus did not finalise the case of the petitioner for payment of his full pension, commutation and gratuity. It is pertinent to mention herein that all these years the petitioner had merely been getting provisional pension and the inordinate delay in payment of his full pension obviously created mental agony and suffering to him. The petitioner pursued his case of pension and still failing to get it finalised, served the respondents with a notice of demand for justice on 10.7.1993 through his advocate and when the same also received no response, the petitioner was left with no choice than to move this Court by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.