Allahabad High Court
Ram Khelawan Shukla vs M.D.Pradeshik Co-Operative Dairy ... on 25 November, 2020
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 22272 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Khelawan Shukla Respondent :- M.D.Pradeshik Co-Operative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Patel Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Tripathi learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Shreya Chaudhary learned counsel holding brief for Mr. Pankaj Patel.
Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
" I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party i.e. Managing Director, Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Limited, to pay remaining amount of Gratuity in tune of Rs.7,78,142 and remaining amount of EPF in tune of Rs.33,369/- within stipulated period, in compliance of order dated 31.10.2020, contained as annexure No.11, to the writ petition, in the interest of justice.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party to pay admissible interest for delayed payment of retiral dues while making full & final payment of retiral dues to the petitioner, in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31st July, 2018 but his post retiral benefits were not provided to him, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this court. It is submitted that petitioner had filed writ petition no. 4931 of 2020 which was disposed of vide order dated 20th February, 2020 directing the opposite parties to decide petitioner's representation. It is submitted that when representation was not decided, the petitioner had to file contempt petition No. 817 of 2020 in which notices were issued whereafter certain payments were made to the petitioner, which were disputed by petitioner leading to filing of writ petition no. 14050 (S/S) of 2020 in which again a direction was issued on 28th August, 2020 for deciding the representation of petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter the opposite parties have issued the order dated 31st October, 2020 admitting their liability towards payment of post retiral benefits of petitioner but at the same time had indicated a condition that due to the precarious financial condition of the corporation, payment to petitioner would be made in future whenever the funds are available. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the amount of outstanding dues as indicated vide order dated 31st October, 2020 are admitted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the pensionary benefits of an employee like the petitioner are not a bounty to be distributed at the sweet will of the employer and that the petitioner has a vested right to be paid his pensionary benefits within a reasonable time from the date of superannuation.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has reiterated the fact that while the corporation admits its liability towards payment of pensionary benefits of petitioner, the same can not be paid instantly in view of precarious financial condition of the corporation whenever the funds are available with corporation.
Considering the material on record and submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent the the opposite parties do not deny their liability for making payments of pensionary benefits to petitioner. Precarious financial condition of a corporation can not be a ground to delay payment of pensionary benefits that are due to superannuated employee. It is settled law in the case of D.S. Nakara versus Union of India reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court Cases 130 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held that pensionary benefits are not a bounty to be distributed at the sweet will of the employer. Similarly in the case of Kapila Hingorani versus State of Bihar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 1 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held that the precarious financial condition of the employer is not a valid ground for delaying or not making payment of pensionary benefits of a superannuated employee in which it has been held as under:-
" Financial stringency may not be a ground for not issuing requisite directions when a question of violation of fundamental right arises. This Court has been highlighting this aspect in the matters concerning fundamental rights and maintenance of ecology. See Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. AIR (1987) SC 359 = [1986] Supp. SCC 517, Ratlam Municipality v. Vardi Chand, [1980] 4 SCC 162 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India, AIR (1996) SC 2969."
A perusal of the impugned order also does not indicate any time frame to which the opposite parties admit to adhere for making payments of pensionary benefits to petitioner. Such a blank cheque can not be issued by the employer to itself with regard to making payment of pensionary benefits. As such a condition indicated in the order dated 31st October, 2020 is clearly unsustainable.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the opposite parties are directed to make payment of the outstanding pensionary benefits of the petitioner as indicated in the order dated 31st October, 2020 within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced. Grant of interest to the petitioner shall also be considered by the opposite parties within the same time period and if found eligible, the petitioner shall be paid the same along with the pensionary benefits.
Consequently, writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 25.11.2020 prabhat