http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: DR. UMA AGARWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1999

BENCH: Hon. CJI.,  M.JAGANNADHA RAO, & N. SANTOSH HEGDE.

JUDGMENT:

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

             The  petitioner was working as Medical Officer          in  the service of the Government of Uttar  Pradesh          and retired on 30.4.1993 on completion of 58 years.          She   filed  this  writ   petition  on   18.11.1995          complaining  that she has not been paid her retiral          benefits, namely, gratuity, provident fund, pension          etc.   This  Court  admitted the writ  petition  on          4.12.1995  and  issued notice to  the  respondents.          The respondents submitted to this Court that, after          her  retirement,  in spite of the petitioner  being          requested  to  send three sets of  pension  papers,          petitioner  did not send them.  This was,  however,          denied  by the petitioner.  This Court directed the          respondents  on  12.2.1996   that  upon  petitioner          furnishing  three  sets of pension papers with  all          relevant  documents, the same should be  processed.          The  respondents  then sent a special messenger  to          various  places  to get details of her service  and          thereafter   the  pension  papers   were  sent   on          24.12.1996 to the Director General, Medical Health,          U.P.   It  was stated that provisional pension  was          paid in December, 1996 and February, 1997.  Arrears          were  paid  on  17.3.1997.   Papers  were  sent  on          29.1.1997  to the Pension Directorate, Lucknow.  In          regard  to  the  GIS it was pointed  out  that  the          petitioner  had  not paid premium of Rs.4770/-  and          thereafter,  the  petitioner deposited the same  on          9.12.1997.   The  GIS  was sent  to  petitioner  on          17.12.1997,  90%  of  GPF was  paid  on  20.1.1998,          balance  was  paid on 25.4.1998.  The Gratuity  was          paid  on  25.6.1997  and the encashment  of  earned          leave  was  also  paid  on   the  same  date.   The          petitioner  demanded interest while the respondents          contended  that  no interest was  payable.   Though          some  other  questions relating to  promotion  etc.          were  referred  to  in the writ  petition,  learned          senior  counsel for the petitioner stated that  the          petitioner  is confining this writ petition only in          regard  to  the pensionary benefits.  Now the  only          question that remains to be decided is the question          relating  to payment of interest.  Learned  counsel          for   the  petitioner  requested   us   that   some          guidelines  may be issued regarding the steps to be          taken  by departments for prompt payment of retiral

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

        benefits.

             Now-a-days,  several writ petitions are  being          filed in this Court and various High Courts seeking          relief   for  disbursement  of  retiral   benefits,          because  of  inordinate delays in payment of  these          benefits.   As Krishna Iyer, J.  stated in State of          Mysore  vs.   C.R.Sheshadri & Others [1974 (4)  SCC          308],  ‘a retired government official is  sensitive          to  delay  in  drawing monetary benefits.   And  to          avoid  posthumous  satisfaction  of  the  pecuniary          expectation  of the superannuated public servant  -          not   unusual  in  government’,   it  is   becoming          necessary  to  issue directions, in several  cases,          for  early  payment of these dues.  In yet  another          case in State of Kerala & Others vs.  M.Padmanabhan          Nair [1985 (1) SCC 429], this Court had occasion to          point  out that usually ‘the delay occurs by reason          of   non-production   of     the   L.P.C(last   pay          certificate)    and    the    N.L.C.(no   liability          certificate)  from  the concerned departments’  but          both  the  documents  pertain to  matters,  records          whereof  would  be  with the  concerned  government          departments.   It was observed that inasmuch as the          date  of retirement of every government servant was          very  much  known in advance, it was  difficult  to          appreciate  why  the  process   of  collecting  the          requisite information and issuance of the abovesaid          two  documents should not be completed well  before          the  date  of  retirement so that  the  payment  of          gratuity  amount  could  be  made on  the  date  of          retirement or on the following day and the pension,          at  the expiry of the following month.  This  Court          stated that the necessity for prompt payment of the          retirement dues to a government servant immediately          after  his retirement could not be  over-emphasised          and  it  would not be unreasonable to  direct  that          there would be a liability to pay penal interest on          these  retirement  benefits.   In  several   cases,          decided  by this Court, interest at the rate of 12%          per  annum  has  been directed to be  paid  by  the          State.

             As these delays have increased in the last few          years,  it  has  become necessary to refer  to  the          Rules   and  Departmental   instructions  which  do          contain  adequate provisions for compilation of all          the necessary data and preparation of the necessary          documents  for  disbursement of  retiral  benefits,          well  in  advance.   The present case  arises  from          Uttar  Pradesh  and we find that the Government  of          Uttar Pradesh has issued instructions to the effect          that   "the  Head  Office,   or   other   authority          responsible for preparing the pension papers should          initiate  the  pension  case,   two  years   before          retirement  of  the  Government servant.   At  that          stage,  the  essential  information  necessary  for          working  out  the  qualifying   service  should  be          collected,  and  the entire service book and  other          service  records  should be examined and  completed          with   a   view   to    remove   deficiencies   and          imperfections, if any, in the service book/records.          This  process  should be completed"  atleast  eight          months  in advance of the date of retirement of the          Government  servant.   The actual  computation  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

        preparation of the pension papers should then start          and  "any  deficiency or imperfection, or  omission          which  still remains in the service records  should          be  ignored,  and the determination  of  qualifying          service  should  be proceeded with on the basis  of          entries in the service records, whatever the degree          of  imperfection  to  which  it  might  have   been          possible to bring them by that time".  "The process          of  determining  the  qualifying  service  and  the          average  emoluments and the admissible pension  and          gratuity  should  be positively completed within  a          period  of 2 months and the pension papers sent  to          the  Accountant-General  not  later than  6  months          before  the date of retirement.  The said office is          to  issue the pension payment order (including  the          order  for the payment of the  Death-cum-retirement          gratuity)  one  month  in advance of  the  date  of          retirement".   "It  should  be   ensured  that  the          payment  of superannuation pension commences on the          first of the month following the month in which the          government  servant  retires".  This appears to  be          the clear position in Uttar Pradesh.

             We may in this connection also refer to F.R.58          which  relates to "preparation of pension  papers".          It   states  that  "every   Head  of  Office  shall          undertake the work of preparation of pension papers          in  Form  7 two years before the date on which  the          Government   servant   is   due    to   retire   on          superannuation  or on the date on which he proceeds          on  leave  preparatory to retirement  whichever  is          earlier".   F.R.59  deals with the ‘stages for  the          completion  of pension papers’.  Sub-clause  (1)(a)          bears  the heading, the first stage, and refers  to          the  verification  of service details.   There  are          five  parts in this sub-clause.  Sub-clause  (1)(b)          refers to the second stage, namely, making good the          omissions in the service book.  Sub-clause 1(b)(ii)          is important and it states very clearly as follows:

             "Every  effort  shall be made to complete  the          verification  of  service, as in clause (a) and  to          make  good omissions, imperfections or deficiencies          referred  to  sub-clause (i) of this  clause.   Any          omission,  imperfections or deficiencies  including          the  portion of service shown as unverified in  the          service  book  which  it has not been  possible  to          verify  in accordance with the procedure laid  down          in   clause  (a)  shall  be  ignored  and   service          qualifying  for pension shall be determined on  the          basis of the entries in the book."

             This  directive  in  the  rules  is  obviously          intended to see that once the period is quite close          to  10 months before the retirement of an employee,          further  time is not to be wasted in verifying data          which  it  has  not  been  possible  to  verify  by          following  the  procedure in sub-clause  (1)(a)  of          F.R.59.   Sub-clause  (1)(c)  refers to  the  third          stage and it says that atleast 10 months before the          date  of  retirement,  the Head office  shall  take          various  steps  by  issuing a  Certificate  to  the          government  servant  and the officer can offer  his          remarks  and thereafter, he shall be furnished Form          4  and  Form 5 which he has to fill-up and send  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

        the Head Office atleast 8 months before the date of          retirement.    F.R.60  refers  to  ‘completion   of          pension  papers’  in  Part-I of Form  7  atleast  6          months  before  the  date  of  retirement  of   the          government   servant.    F.R.61   deals  with   the          ‘Forwarding of Pension Papers to Accounts Officer’,          in Form 5 and Form 7 with a covering letter in Form          8  along  with  service book duly  completed,  upto          date,  and  other documents.  This has to  be  done          atleast  6  months before the date  of  retirement.          Rule  63  refers to recovery of amounts due by  the          government  servant  and  the particulars  in  this          behalf  are to be sent atleast 2 months before  the          date  of  retirement,  so that the  same  could  be          recovered  from  the gratuity.  F.R.64  deals  with          provisional  pension.  F.R.65 requires the Accounts          Officer  to  assess  the   amount  of  pension  and          gratuity  atleast  one  month before  the  date  of          retirement.  F.R.68 requires interest to be paid on          delayed payment of gratuity.  As already stated, in          cases of delayed payment of pension, this Court has          levied interest at 12% per annum in several cases.

             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  atleast  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 and it  was  only          after 12.2.1996 when an interim order was passed in          this writ petition that the respondents woke up and          started  work  by  sending a special  messenger  to          various  places  where the petitioner  had  worked.          Such  an  exercise should have started  atleast  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

        cannot  be  an  excuse  for  the  lethargy  of  the          department  inasmuch as the rules and  instructions          require  these  actions  to be  taken  long  before          retirement.   The  exercise which was to  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 quantify the interest payable at Rs.1          lakh  and direct that the same shall be paid to the          petitioner within two months from today.

              The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.          There will be no order as to costs.