Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42702 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3973 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Satyawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Lko. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Chauhan,Rishi Raj,Varun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rishi Raj learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 30th September, 2024 whereby petitioner's representation for grant of interest on delayed payment of post retiral benefits due to her husband has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband late Dheer Singh was employed as a Tubewell Operator in the irrigation department on 20th June, 1970 and functioned as such till 31st March, 1986 whereafter he gave an application for voluntary retirement, which was rejected but subsequently he obtained employment with the Life Insurance Corporation and continued to be employed in the corporation till 2007 whereafter he gave an application to the department for grant of pensioanary benefits on 8th March, 2011 whereafter pensionary benefits were sanctioned vide order dated 30th May, 2012 and payment thereafter was made but her representation for interest on delayed payment has been rejected. He has adverted to the U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules 1995 to submit that there is a time frame prescribed under the aforesaid rules for payment of pensioanary benefits, which has not been adhered to by the opposite parties due to which they are liable for payment of interst. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua versus State of Haryana and another (2006) 3 SCC 14. 4. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that petitioner's late husband absconded from duty from Ist April, 1986 without any sanction or leave. He had applied for voluntary retirement, which was rejected whereafter he unauthorizedly was in the employment of Life Insurance Corporation and superannuated from Corporation on 31st July, 2007 and was receiving salary from another establishment during the aforesaid time period. It is submitted that for the first time petitioner's husband submitted a representation for pensionary benefits on 8th March, 2011 whereafter it was sanctioned on 30th May, 2012. It is therefore submitted that there is no delay on the part of opposite parties in making payment of retiral dues particularly in view of the fact that petitioner's late husband was unauthorizedly absent subsequent to Ist April, 1986. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that the alleged unauthorized absence of petitioner from duties subsequent to 31st March, 1986 was thereafter sanctioned and authorized vide letter dated 18th March, 1988 whereby leave without pay was sanctioned. It is also evident that no disciplinary or any other proceedings were held by the department terminating or otherwise dispensing with the services of petitioner's late husband. The impugned order also indicates that upon representation having been made for payment of post retiral benefits, the same were also sanctioned vide order dated 30th May, 2012. 6. In such circumstances when the opposite parties themselves have sanctioned leave without pay to petitioner, their objection with regard to unauthorized absence of petitioner's late husband does not stand to reason. This is more so in view of subsequent order dated 30th May, 2012 whereby pension was also sanctioned by the opposite parties without any demur. 7. The Rules of 1995 clearly prescribe a time period for payment of pensionary benefits of government employees as indicated in the schedule under Rule 3(b) and 3(k). Admittedly the aforesaid time period has not been adhered to by the opposite parties. The aforesaid aspect has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Dua (supra) in the following manner:- "14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents." 8. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 30th September, 2014 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of interest to petitioner on delayed payment of post retiral benefits at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from 31st April, 1996 till the date of actual payment in pursuance of impugned order dated 30th May, 2012. The opposite parties shall ensure payment of such benefits to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority. 9. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 prabhat Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench