Allahabad High Court
Samal Chand Tiwari Son Of Late Prem ... vs State Of U.P., Through Secretary, Avas ... on 6 December, 2005
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner has sought a mandamus directing the respondents to pay retiral benefits to the petitioner which have not been paid till date alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of present case are that the petitioner, who was working as Clerk in the Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar, attained the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2001 but not only retiral benefits have not been paid but even arrears of revised pay scale from 1.1.1996 to 30.6.1998 have also not been paid. The contention of the petitioner is that the act of the respondents of non payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner and other dues is deliberate, arbitrary and discriminatory in as much as Nagar Nigam has not curtailed any of its expenditure but on the pretext of financial crises is not paying dues to which the petitioner is entitled. It is also urged that pension amounts to deferred wages on account of long service rendered by him with the employer and, therefore, non payment of his pension and other dues is violative of Articles 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has filed a counter affidavit and submitted that as large number of persons have retired from the service of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and liability to make payment of their retiral dues are also not disputed by the respondents but on account of financial crises, retiral benefits could not be paid to the petitioner and similarly placed other persons. He has also drew attention of the court to the stand taken by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit which are as hereunder :
5. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No. 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition it is stated that the Corporation is not denying its liability to make payment of retiring benefits to retired employees as claimed by the petitioner but only oh account of financial crisis the answering respondents found very difficult to make payment within time thus in pursuance of directions of Lokayukt, U.P. Lucknow the list of retiring employees is already prepared according to seniority/retirement date and year-wise and in strict compliance while payment was to be made to retired employees according to seniority, a large number of petitioners including present petitioner filed writ petitions and orders obtained, the department as per availability of funds is paying in compliance of court's order as well as, looking into the critical position and financial needs of retired employees on preferential basis as also on representation of retired employees considering the genuineness, needs and necessities of the matter they are being paid without waiting their turn.
6. That in reply to the contents of paragraphs No. 7 and 8 it is stated that the answering respondents are not denying their liability to make payment of retiral dues but on account of financial crisis the retiral benefit could not be paid as a whole.
7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the financial condition of Nagar Nigam is very critical and as such what about to make payment of retiral dues within time to its large number of retired' employees, the Corporation finds itself unable to make payment of regular salary month to month to its working staff/employees. The delay occurring in making payment delayed is not as a result of deliberate intention but beyond control hence the Corporation may be exempted from making payment of interest to the retired employees.
8. That the contents of paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition as stated are regarding to orders passed by the Hon'ble Court in particular facts of that very cases which may not be taken as a precedence. It is further stated that in such peculiar cases, in case Hon'ble Court directs for payment of interest, the department having no option except to comply the court's order irrespective of financial crisis, but so far as the delayed payment are concerned it has not been a result of knowingly, purposely and deliberately, but beyond control.
4. After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the defence of financial crisis on the part of the respondents is neither just nor a valid reason to deny the lawful dues to which a employee is entitled as a matter of right.
5. In the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , it has been held as follows:
pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. (Para 20).
In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from underserved want was recognized and as a first steps pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The guid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, he rendered not master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount. (Para 22).
Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. (Para 28).
Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is no only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. (Para 29)
6. Thus, retiral benefits are not bounty but a right earned by the employer and thus it is deferred wages payable to a Government servant in lieu of considerable length of service rendered by an employee to the employer.
7. The quantum of retiral benefits although is governed by statutory rules but it is clear that Government servant has a legal right to receive his retiral benefits as soon as he retires. After retirement a Government servant is not paid any salary. Only some amount is paid in the form of retiral benefits to provide him monetary assistance to sustain himself and his dependents with honour and dignity.
8. Non payment of pension, therefore, amounts to denying right to earn livelihood of an employee who after retirement may need it most, since he does not get thereafter a regular salary from the employer but at the advance age. the employee and his family is taken care by the nominal amount paid to him as retiral benefits. The respondents have also not care to place on record the details showing as to how they claim that they do not have sufficient funds to pay retiral benefits to the employees. It is not the case of the respondents that day-to-day functioning has hampered or the officers of the respondents are also not getting their regular salary. No details of any expenditure etc. have been furnished by the respondents. In a vague and evasive manner, the plea of financial crisis has been taken to deny the admitted liability. Apathy on the part of the respondents is writ large from the facts that there is no mention in the entire counter affidavit that the retiral benefits shall be paid to the petitioner within a reasonable time. This itself shows total inaction and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.
9. In the case of Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichan and Ors. the Municipality failed to discharge its statutory obligation of maintenance of roads, sewerage systems, filthing of public streets etc. which caused public insanitation, collection of filth garbage etc. menacing public health in general. The Magistrate under Section 133 Cr.P.C. passed order directing the Municipality to maintain public roads clean, sewer and sewerage systems.. The Municipality approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court raising plea of non availability of requisite funds for discharge of its statutory functions. The Apex Court considered the aforesaid defence of the appellant-Municipality and observed as under :
Its plea is not that the facts are wrong but that the law is not right because the municipal funds being insufficient it cannot carry out the duties under Section 123 of the Act....
The plea of the municipality that notwithstanding the public nuisance financial inability validly exonerates it from statutory liability has no juridical basis. The Criminal Procedure Code operates against statutory bodies and others regardless of the cash in their coffers, even as human rights under Part III of the Constitution have to be respected by the State regardless of budgetary provision. Likewise, Section 123 of the Act has no saving clause when the municipal council is penniless. Otherwise, a profligate statutory body or pachyder-mic governmental agency may legally defy duties under the law by urging in self-defence a self-created, bankruptcy or perverted expenditure budget. That cannot be.
10. Similarly financial crunch or shortage of funds would not be a valid defence for the State where it is bound to discharge its duties which are statutory or constitutional is also the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. Cipla Ltd. and Ors. and The State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and Anr. and AIR 1987 SC 157, para 92, 93 and 99. In the present case, the petitioner has a fundamental right to earn livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which includes that after the retirement he is also entitled to receive his deferred wages in accordance with rules. Non payment of retiral benefits, therefore, of the petitioner is violation of the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. The respondents have not shown any where as to what efforts they' have made to arrange the requisite finance for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner who has retired as long back as on 31st October, 2001 i.e. more than four years ago. Counter affidavit is completely silent on this aspect and shows the total laxity and apathy on the part of the respondents.
12. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, the Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or in action may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this court that the Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this court has never been a silent spectator but always reacted to bring the authorities to law.
13. In the case of Lord Hailsham in Cassell and Co. Ltd. v. Broome 1972 AC 1027 the Apex Court held as follows ;
An Ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law... public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it.... Harrassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous.
14. In the case of Registered Society v. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 530 the Apex court has follows as under:
No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of mala fide but you can not hold me personally liable" No public servant can arrogate in himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.
15. In the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of India the Apex Court has held as follows:
An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit.
16. In the case of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction and Anr. has held as follows:
A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not mean to enable the guilty to delay and defeat the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless.
17. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that non payment of retiral benefits and others to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is no valid justification for the respondents to delay payment thereof.
18. Now the question comes about entitlement of the petitioner for interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits. Since the date of retirement is known to the respondents well in advance, there is no reason for them not to make arrangement for payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner well in advance so that as soon as the employee retires, his retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or within reasonable time thereafter. Inaction and inordinate delay in payment of retiral benefits is nothing but culpable delay warranting liability of interest on such dues. In the case of State of Karla and Ors. v. M. Padmanabhan Nair 1985 (1) SLR 750, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
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 atleast 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 months. The necessity for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasized 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.
19. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits has to be sustained.
20. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay entire retiral benefits and other amount due to the petitioner within a period of three months alongwith interest calculated at the rate of six percent per annum with effect from the expiry of two months from the date of retirement till it is paid. However, it is open to the respondents to realize the excess amount paid to the petitioner under this order from such person/persons who are found responsible for such delay in payment after making necessary enquiry in accordance with law.
21. The petitioner is also entitled to costs which is quantified to Rs. 500/-.