Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4572 (ALL)

Bankey Bihari Lal v. State of U. P.

2026-03-24

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2026
JUDGMENT : KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to sanction retiral dues such as pension, leave encashment and gratuity, etc. 3. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay interest on the amount of post-retiral dues @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.1998 till the date of actual payment. 4. Further, it has been prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to pay 10% of the General Provident Fund to the petitioner along with interest till the date of actual payment. 5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.07.2023, directed the respondents to pay 10% of the remaining GPF to the petitioner upon authorization by respondent No. 4. Payment of leave encashment was also directed to be made to the petitioner within a period of three months. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in compliance of the aforesaid order, entire leave encashment has been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2023 to the tune of Rs. 15,558/-. The gratuity amount has also been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 02.09.2023, and provisional pension had earlier been paid to the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2009. The entire provident fund amount also stands paid to the petitioner with interest. Therefore, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner has now confined his prayer to grant of regular pension along with interest w.e.f. 01.03.1998. He also prays for interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment and gratuity. 7. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Clerk in the office of respondent No. 3 on 17.06.1964. After providing satisfactory service and on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 28.02.1998. After his retirement, on 03.03.1998, the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow lodged an FIR against the petitioner and one Kailash Narain Mishra, being Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Wazir Ganj, Lucknow, alleging that certain documents of Lucknow Mandaliya Vikas Nigam were missing. After his retirement, on 03.03.1998, the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow lodged an FIR against the petitioner and one Kailash Narain Mishra, being Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Wazir Ganj, Lucknow, alleging that certain documents of Lucknow Mandaliya Vikas Nigam were missing. It is submitted that at the time of retirement of the petitioner, no departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings were pending against him, nor were the same contemplated. 8. It is further submitted that only on account of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998, the respondents arbitrarily withheld the post-retiral dues of the petitioner, and only after interim order passed by this Court the same have been released. So far as the aforesaid criminal case is concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 7102205 of 2006 ( State of U.P. vs. Banke Bihari Lal ) vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998, a copy of the same has been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit dated 06.01.2026 filed by the petitioner. Against the acquittal order, no appeal has been filed by the State. 9. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to payment of regular pension as well as interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment, gratuity and pension. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others, (2014) 8 SCC 894 ; State of U.P. and Others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh , (2017) 1 SCC 49 and S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and Another , (2008) 3 SCC 44 . 10. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of the counter affidavit, submitted that a direction was issued to grant provisional pension to the petitioner by the Commissioner, Rural Development, U.P., Lucknow vide office letter dated 15.01.2009. It is submitted that since judicial proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 were initiated and remained pending against the petitioner, the retiral dues were not paid in time. However, with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that any appeal has been filed or is pending against the said judgment. 11. However, with regard to the acquittal of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that any appeal has been filed or is pending against the said judgment. 11. Be that as it may, and considering the fact that it is an admitted position between the parties that at the time of retirement in the year 1998, no judicial or departmental proceedings were pending or even contemplated against the petitioner, and the criminal proceedings initiated via Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 have culminated in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 7102205 of 2006 ( State of U.P. vs. Banke Bihari Lal ), there was no justification for the respondents to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. In the absence of any departmental inquiry, the respondents ought to have released pension as well as other retiral dues to which the petitioner was entitled. 12. It is submitted that the U.P. Pension Cases (Submission, Disposal and Avoidance of Delay) Rules, 1995, have been framed by the legislature to avoid inconvenience to retired government employees. The Rules prescribe a specific time frame under Rule 3(b) and Rule 4(k) mentioned in the Schedule for various stages, like Completion and Verification of the Service Book, its Review and Removal of deficiencies, Issuance of 'No Dues Certificate', and Forwarding of Pension Papers etc. As per the Schedule, Provisional Pension to an Office Superintendent, like the petitioner, ought to have been sanctioned within one month from the date of retirement/death. The Payment of Provisional Pension is to be made by the seventh day of every month, and similarly, Payment of Pension is to be made within one month from the date of receipt of the payment order. 13. This Court has noticed that the provisional pension, which ought to have been made within one month from the date of retirement in terms of the Rules of 1995 (supra), was made at a much belated stage, i.e. vide order dated 15.01.2009, without any reason or justification. 14. Since no departmental proceedings were either initiated or pending against the petitioner, and no judicial proceedings were pending at the time of his retirement, nor had any orders been passed by respondent No. 2 under Regulations 351 or 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, there was no justification for withholding the petitioner's retiral dues. 15. 14. Since no departmental proceedings were either initiated or pending against the petitioner, and no judicial proceedings were pending at the time of his retirement, nor had any orders been passed by respondent No. 2 under Regulations 351 or 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, there was no justification for withholding the petitioner's retiral dues. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to pay regular pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.1998. 16. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest on account of delayed payment of post-retiral dues is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives (supra), in paragraph 6, has held as under:- "6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred [ (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent." 17. In S.K. Dua (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14 has held as under:- "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. 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." 18. In Dhirendra Pal Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "9. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair [State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 278] , this Court has held that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on the retirement but are valuable rights in their hands, and any culpable delay in disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest. In the said case the Court approved 6% p.a. interest on the amount of pension decreed by the trial court and affirmed [State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan Nair, 1983 SCC OnLine Ker 205 : 1984 KLT 542 ] by the High Court. As to the rate of interest on amount of gratuity, in Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, it is provided that if the amount of gratuity payable is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may by notification specify. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to the fault of the employee, and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. It further provides that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in payment is due to the fault of the employee, and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. In the present case, there is no plea before us that the appellants had sought any permission in writing from the controlling authority. As to the delay on the part of the employee, it has come on the record that he made representations, whereafter he filed a suit in respect of withheld amount of gratuity and pension. In Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank [Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 3 SCC 472 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 640] , this Court, after discussing the issue relating to interest payable on the amount of gratuity not paid within time, directed that interest @ 8% p.a. shall be paid on the amount of gratuity." 19. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Chauhan vs. State of U.P. and Others , 2025 (43) LCD 2453, in paragraph 10 has held as under:- "10. In view of aforesaid discussion, it being evident that impugned order dated 22.06.2023 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in nature of Certiorari. A further writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to ensure payment of gratuity and leave encashment to petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon competent authority. Petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment." 20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment of this Court, and considering the inordinate delay in making payment of post-retiral dues such as leave encashment, gratuity and regular pension, it is directed that simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum shall be paid to the petitioner from the date of superannuation till the date of actual payment on the amounts of regular pension, leave encashment and gratuity, etc. within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.