MOHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant 'sunsatisfied claim for 18% per annum interest on delayed payment of pension and gratuity has culminated into this appeal. The appellant had retire from the Government service on 31.1.1998 on attaining age of superannuation. Admittedly the retiral dues were paid to him in the month of July 2001 i.e. after the delay of more than three years. According to the appellant, the Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) dated 16.2.1999 was issued by the Accountant General, Bihar with a condition of recovery of the amount of pay and allowances of certain period from the appellant which according to him were legally paid to him. The appellant immediately protested against the said condition of recovery by making representation against the said pension payment order. Against the said P.P.O. the petitioner had filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 521/2000 before the Patna High Court. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2001 with direction to the respondents to hear the petitioner and pass speaking order. The appellant then filed representation before the Accountant General, Bihar which was considered and revised P.P.O. was issued on 9.7.2001 and the appellant 'spension and gratuity were paid. The appellant thereafter claimed 18% per annum interest on the delayed payment of his retiral benefit which was not heeded upon. The appeUant then filed W.P.(S) No. 2676/2002 seeking direction to the respondents to pay interest on the delayed payment of his retiral dues. The respondents contested the appellant 'sclaim contending that there was no fault on the part of the respondent and the petitioner had himself challenged the P.P.O. and did not draw the payment on that basis. The learned Single Judge accepting the respondent 's contention dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the delay in releasing the retiral due (sic) deliberate from the side of the respondents and the delay was under unforeseen circumstance. The said order of the learned Single Judge is under challenged in this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General as also the learned G.P. -IV appearing on behalf of the State -respondents. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from Government service on 31.1.1998 and one Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) was issued by the Accountant General dated 16.2.1999 wherein there was a condition of recovery of the certain amount paid to the appellant towards pay and allowances which according to him was legally paid. It is admitted that the appellant protested against the same and ultimately filed a writ application C.W.J.C. No. 521/2000 and on the direction passed in the said writ application, the Accountant General, Bihar considered the objection and issued a revised P.P.O. dated 29.7.2001 revalidating the same order but without any condition of recovery from the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the said circumstances and the circular of the Government while dismissing the writ application of the appellant. Admitted correction of the Pension Payment Order goes to prove that the fault was on the part of the respondents and for that the appellant cannot be made to suffer.