Bandana Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. Through Secretary, Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the state of u. since, the date of retirement of every government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month.rajesh tandon, j. 1. heard sri i.d. paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri b.s. verma, learned standing counsel (state of u.p.).2. by the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse the family pension of the petitioner's husband due to him on 11th february, 1994 and further to release other post retirement benefits for which her husband was entitled i.e., provident fund, gratuity and group insurance etc.3. brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased sri sate singh who was an employee in the plant protection office, department of agriculture at pauri, district pauri garhwal. at the time of death, late sri sate singh was working as senior assistant in the aforesaid department who died on 11th february, 1994 at pauri.4. according to the petitioner her husband had joined the agriculture department in lower subordinate service on 17.5.1955. since, then the petitioner's husband continued to serve the department in a substantial capacity and he was also given regular promotions. in the year 1975-76, the husband of the petitioner was promoted as senior assistant. thereafter, on 11th february, 1994, at the time of his death, the petitioner's husband was working as senior assistant in plant protection office, department of agriculture at pauri, district pauri garhwal.5. due to ill health of her husband in the year 1987, he had applied for voluntary retirement vide his representation dated 12.11.1987. the petitioner has stated that in spite of her request the department has not given service either to the petitioner or any of his sons and has also not paid the retirement benefits to the petitioner. the husband of the petitioner had worked more than 33 years and was entitled for the grant of pension at the time of his death.6. the petitioner has stated in paragraph 19 of the writ petition that he has made several representations. the details are quoted below :--'that subsequently the petitioner's husband made several representations before the authorities in which he stated that his family and he is in great hardship and the order dated 2.12.1992 and the earlier orders dated 28.1.1988 and 1.12.1992, passed by the respondents are absolutely illegal and the respondents should immediately give him gratuity, g.p..f. and other post retirement service benefits and in fact should start giving petitioner's husband his pension and the pension should be calculated for the entire period of his service. the aforesaid representations were made by the petitioner's husband before the respondents through registered letters dated 10.7.1993, 23.8.1993, 12.10.1993, 24.1.1994 and 24.4.1994. true copies of the aforesaid letters together with their respective registered slips are being annexed herewith and marked as annexure nos. viii, viii-a, ix, ix-a, x, x-a, xi, xi-a, xii, xii-a, xiii and xiii-a respectively.'7. even the government of u.p. has passed various orders regarding the matters of pension and has directed its concerned department that in the matter of pension, there should be no slackness or delay and the matters of pension should be disposed of as early as possible. in spite of government orders dated 17.7.1984 and 18.8.1993, pensionary benefits has not been made available to the petitioner, as such, the present writ petition has been filed.8. on 26.9.2003, following order was passed by his lordship hon'ble mr. justice p.c. verma :--'heard sri i.d. paliwal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the state of u.p.the high court at allahabad passed the order on 1.3.1996 as under :list this matter on 15th april, 1996. the respondents shall in the meantime file counter-affidavit. respondents shall in the meantime release, in favour of the petitioner, the amount of gratuity which was payable to her husband.'it has been stated in para 8 of the rejoinder-affidavit that the family of the deceased has not received family pension or any other benefit till date, rather the delay in payment has been fastened on the petitioner. therefore, principal secretary, agriculture, government of u.p., lucknow is directed to appear before this court on 31.10.2003. in case, the entire payment as claimed by the petitioner, which is found legally due payable to the petitioner is not paid, the principal secretary, agriculture, government of u.p. need not appear in person. a copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the principal secretary, agriculture, government of u.p., lucknow by fax.9. in reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the counsel for the state of u.p. has filed short affidavit wherein he has mentioned that the order dated 24th october, 2003 has already been passed for giving the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit, the state of u.p. has mentioned the following benefits, which are being given to the petitioner. paras 6 and 7 arc quoted below :--'6 . that the deponent has received the copies of the orders issued by chief agriculture officer, pauri garhwal vide his letter no. 495/agn/court case/8083 |new no. 2766 (s/s) 2001] dated 24.10.2003 in which self-contained orders have been issued in compliance of the hon'ble court's interim order dated 1.3.1996. in the said order the chief agriculture officer, pauri garhwal, the following benefits have been ordered : (i) retirement gratuity;(ii) group insurance amount;(iii) general provident fund; and(iv) provisional pension to the deceased employee till the date of death and the family pension after the death of the employee. 7. that it is being further submitted that plant protection officer, pauri garhwal vide his letter no. 221/estt./dated 24.10.2003 issued order regarding payment of provisional family pension and provisional gratuity, the true copies of the said orders of chief agriculture officer, pauri garhwal dated 24.10.2003 is being annexed as annexure no. 3 and of plant protection officer, pauri garhwal is being annexed as annexure no. 4 to this affidavit.'10. it is settled law that pension and gratuity are the legal rights of the pensioner and it is no more bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement as held by the apex court in (1985) 1 supreme court cases 429, state of kerala and ors. v. m. padmanabhan nair, that there should be a prompt payment of the retirement dues of the government servant. the observations are quoted below :--'pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment.usually the delay occurs by reason of noon-production of the l.p.c. (last pay certificate) and the n.l.c. (no liability certificate) from the concerned departments but both these documents pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned government departments. since, the date of retirement of every government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why the process of collecting the requisite information and issuance of these two documents should not be completed at least a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the government servant on the date he retires or on the following day and pension at the expiry of the following month. the necessary for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be unreasonable to direct that the liability to pay penal interest on these dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement.'11. recently in the case of uma agrawal v. state of u.p. and ors., reported in jt 1999 (2) sc 359, the apex court has also held that the pension papers should be ready before retirement. here in the present case, the husband of the petitioner, has expired and in spite of various representations, the retirement benefits have not been paid. the observations of the apex court is quoted below :--'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 various governmental 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 in spirit. delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. this is indeed unfortunate. in cases, 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 case before us is a clear example of department delay which is not excusable. the petitioner retired on 30.4.1993, when an interim order was passed in this writ petition that the respondents woke up arid started work by sending a special messenger to various places where the petitioner had worked. such an exercise should have started at least in 1991, two years before retirement. the amounts due to the petitioner were computed and the payments were made only during 1997-98. the petitioner was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. even assuming that some letters were sent to the petitioner after her retirement on 30.3.1993, seeking information from her, an allegation which is denied by the petitioner, that cannot be an excuse for the lethargy of the department inasmuch as the rules and instructions requires these actions to be taken long before retirement. the exercise which was to be completed long before retirement was in fact started long after the petitioner's retirement.therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner. we do not think that for the purpose of the computation of interest, the matter should go back. instead, on the facts of this case, we quantity the interest payable at rs. 1 lakh and direct that the same shall be paid to the petition within two months from today.'12. writ petition deserves to succeed. writ of mandamus is issued commending the respondents to disburse the family pension and other post retrial benefits for which the deceased was entitled including provident fund, gratuity and group insurance.13. the petitioner, shall complete the papers within two weeks after obtaining certified copy of this order. if the amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @9% per annum.14. consequently, writ petition is allowed. there will be no order as to costs.