High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satish Chandra Garg v. U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd.& Others - WRIT - A No. 30018 of 2004  RD-AH 6967 (30 March 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30018 of 2004
Satish Chandra Garg
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & others
Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity, time scales of pay and full pension and retrial dues to the petitioner by which the petitioner is entitled.
The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed with erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board on 1.5.1967 as operator. The petitioner was promoted on 1.11.1981 as Junior Engineer and from that date the petitioner was discharging the said function as a Junior Engineer and retired from the said post from the Electricity Distribution Division Khurja on 31.7.2003. It has further been submitted that from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner, there was no complaint and the service record of the petitioner was unblemished and no disciplinary action was taken at any point of time against the petitioner. Immediately after the retirement, the petitioner is legally entitled to be paid all the retrial benefits including the time scales and the pension of the petitioner is to be fixed according to that but the respondents in spite of the repeated requests and reminders have not paid the retrial benefits and only the provisional pension, without implementing the revised pay scale for which the petitioner was entitled according to the implementation of Vth Pay Commission report, has been paid.
When the retrial benefits were not paid to the petitioner and the petitioner was in great financial hardship, he filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court while entertaining the writ petition on 3.8.2004 granted one months' time to the respondents to file a counter affidavit.
A counter affidavit has been filed. With the counter affidavit a letter dated 8th August, 2005, Annexure C.A.-1 has been annexed, fixing some liability upon the petitioner for certain amounts of different dates that is 6.3.1990, 24.12.1989 and 17.9.1990 and the total amount is about Rs.1,40, 900.00. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the petitioner was posted in the workshop at Khurja there were some thefts, as such, the petitioner has been held responsible for the aforesaid amounts. It has also been stated in the said annexure that as the matter is of 15 years old and an FIR was lodged but after the investigation, the final report has been submitted and from the investigation it has not been found that whose liability is to be fixed regarding the aforesaid theft. It has further been mentioned that no record relating to theft is available in the office but it is only incorporated in some documents. The respondents have taken a plea that due to the aforesaid fact, the pension, gratuity and revised pay scale have not been paid.
On the other hand, the petitioner submits that from the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the liability has not been fixed upon the petitioner and there is no document available, fixing a liability upon the petitioner. It is also clear from the record that at no point of time the petitioner has been given any notice or opportunity or at any point of time any disciplinary proceeding regarding the amounts, which have been mentioned in Annexure C.A.-1 of the counter affidavit, a liability to that effect has been fixed upon the petitioner. From Annexure C.A.6 dated 11.1.2005 of the counter affidavit, it is also clear that a departmental enquiry was initiated and an enquiry to that effect has been held and it has been found that the petitioner is not responsible and not found guilty. In such a situation, the petitioner submits that the respondents are duty bound to pay the retrial benefits for which the petitioner is entitled but reasons best known to the respondents the same have not been paid up-till-date.
I have heard Sri Manish Goel, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ranjit Saxena, Advocate, who is appearing for the U.P. Power Corporation and have perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on 31.7.2003, about three years have been passed but the retrial benefits to the petitioner have not been paid. Only the provisional pension has been paid. From the record, it is clear that no liability has been fixed on the basis of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, which is apparent from Annexure 6 to the counter affidavit, therefore, the contention of the respondents that there is a liability upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,40,900.00.00 in view of the letter dated 8.8.2005 appears to be incorrect. From the record, it is also clear that at no point of time even when the petitioner was in service any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged theft and the responsibility, have been fixed upon the petitioner. Now it is well settled that retrial benefits to an employee is a fundamental right of a person, who has rendered about 30 to 35 years of service in a particular department. The Apex Court has held in various cases that the entitlement of retrial benefits is a right of a person and it is not a charity, therefore, unless and proved, otherwise, a person is entitled to get his retrial benefits immediately after his retirement. If the same are not paid, the person who is entitled for the same is entitled for interest and damages.
From the record, it is proved that due to inaction of the respondents, the retrial benefits including the revised pay scale to the petitioner have not been paid deliberately. In such a situation, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to pay all the retrial benefits including revised pay scale for which the petitioner is entitled according to 5th Pay Commission within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and the petitioner will also be entitled to get interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 6%. If the total amount for which the petitioner is entitled, is not paid within a period specified above, the petitioner will be entitled interest at the rate of 12% from the date of entitlement till the date of payment. It is also made clear that the respondent No.2 is further directed to make an enquiry to this effect that on whose fault the retrial benefits to the petitioner have not been paid and an enquiry to that effect be made and responsibility to be fixed upon those officers and the amount of interest which will be paid to the petitioner be recovered from the personal salary of those officers, who have been held responsible. The respondent No.2 is further directed to inform this Court regarding the compliance of the order of this Court within a period of two months.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.