Allahabad High Court High Court

Brijendra Kumar Tyagi vs State Of U.P.Through … on 5 January, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Brijendra Kumar Tyagi vs State Of U.P.Through … on 5 January, 2010
                                    -1-

Court No. - 4

Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 652 of 2006

Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Tyagi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prn.Secy.Agriculture And 2 Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Pushpila Bist
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon’ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J.

Heard Miss Pushpila Bist, learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus

commanding the respondents to make the payment of Gratuity, General

Provident Fund as well as the arrears of the Dearness Allowance to the

petitioner and also the interest @18% per annum on the delay in making

the payment.

The petitioner retired as Director, Agriculture Government of U.P. on

31.8.2004. His service benefits were withheld on the report of Finance

Controller in the department. In paragraph-3 of the Counter Affidavit of

Sri K. B. Singh, the present Director, Agriculture it is stated that

subsequently, the sanction has been given for payment of gratuity of

Rs.3,17,017.00 (Rupees three lacs seventeen thousand seventeen). An

amount of of Rs.32,983.00 (Rupees thirty two thousand nine hundred

eighty three) was withheld on account of some recoveries pertaining to the

excess expenditure in awarding contracts, on purchase of intercom and

irregular payment on the purchase of Copper Matting.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after filing of the

contempt petition for compliance of the order of the Court to decide the
-2-

representation even this amount of Rs.32,983/- (Rupees thirty two

thousand nine hundred eighty three) was released by pension payment

order dated 21.05.2007 and that now only an error needs to be rectified for

payment of GPF dues for which a representation has already been made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that no justification has

been given to withhold the retiral dues and that the subsequent release of

all the dues on its own, would make the petitioner entitled to interest by

way of compensation.

The respondents have not given any justification in their counter

affidavit for withholding the retirement benefit and also Rs.32,983/-. There

is absolutely nothing on record to attribute the delay to the petitioner. We,

therefore, find that the petitioner is entitled for simple interest on the

amount of Rs.3,17,017.00 (Rupees three lacs seventeen thousand

seventeen) which was released on 28.12.2006 and further on an amount of

Rs.32,983/-(Rupees thirty two thousand nine hundred eighty three) for

which the pension payment order was issued on 21.05.2007 @8% per

annum, which the petitioner would have otherwise earned by putting it in

the fixed deposit in any nationalised bank at the relevant time. So far as the

error in the General Provident Fund account is concerned, the competent

authority will decide the representation within a period of six weeks from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of relief given as

above.

Order Date :- 5.1.2010
VNP/-