DR. UMA AGRAWAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 22-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. UMA AGRA WAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR 
MARCH 22, 1999 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND N. 
SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
ServiCe Law : Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules-Rules 58, 59, 60, 61, 
63, 64, 65 and 68-Retiral Benefits-Delay in disbursement of-Government 
C Department should initiate process for payment at least 2 years in advance-
Department taking steps nearly 3 years after retirement pursuant to interim 
orders of Court and payments made 2 years thereafter-Government servant, 
a cancer patient put to great hardship-Held, delay in disbursement 
inexcusable and interest payable quantified at Rs. 1 lakh. 
,D 
The pettioner retired from U.P. Government services on 30.04.1993, 
was not paid her retiral benefits, namely, gratuity, provident fund, pension 
etc. till 18.11.1995. She approached this Court in Writ Petition seeking 
relief for disbursement of pensionery benefits becausee of inordinate delay 
in payment of these benefits and also penal' interest on these retirement 
E benefits. Thereafter pursuant to interim order of this Court, respondent took 
active steps for finalisation of petitioner's retirment benefits but made 
payments to the petitioner 2 years thereafter. Despite this inordinate delay 
in disbursement of paynientsiife respondent declined to grant penal interest 
on these retirement benefits. 
F 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Rules and Departmental instructions prescribing the 
time schedule in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits, 
are to be followed strictly. Then much of the litigation can be avoided and 
G retired government servants will not feel harassed because after all, grant 
of pension is not a bounty but a r.ight of the government servant Government 
is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned 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 
H a retired government servant claims interest for delayed payment, Court can 
42 
DR. UMA AGRAWAL v.STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 
43 
certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the rules/instructions A 
apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case. (47-B-D] 
State of Mysore v. C.R. Sheshadri & Others, (1974) 4 SCC 308 and 
' 
State of Kera/a&: Ors v. M Padmanabhan Nair, [1985) 1 SCC 429, relied 
on. 
2. In the instant case, the government department should have initiated 
B 
the process for payment at least two years in advance of the date of petitioner's 
retirement but the department actually took steps for collecting requisite 
papers/information from various office where petitioner had worked for 
finalisation of her retirement benefits nearly three years after retirement. C 
Moreover this was pursuant to the interim orders of the court The petitioner 
was a cancer patient and was indeed put to great hardship. Hence, delay in 
disbursement of retiral benefits cannot be excused inasmuch as the rules 
and instructions require these actions to be taken long before retirement. 
Therefore, this is a fit case for awarding interest to the petitioner and for 
the purpose of the computation of interest the matter should not go back. · D 
Instead, on the facts of the case, the interest payable is quantified at Rs. 1 
lakh and it is directed that the same shall be paid to the petitioner within . 
two months. [47-E:-Hl 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDiCTION : Writ Pe.ition (C) No. 771 of 
1995. 
E 
Under Article 32 of the constitution of India. 
R.K. Jain, f:vfanoj Goel, Ajay K. Agrawal for the Petitioner 
· Pramod Swarup for.AK. Srivastava for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 comph;tion of 58 years. She filed this writ petition on 18.11.1995 G 
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, H 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A however, denie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.