High Court · 2025

Heard Mr. S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Shikha Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5 as well as Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and perused the record. Mr. Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.8 is not present. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.6, 7 and 9. The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondent no.5 to ensure the payment of group insurance to the petitioners along with 18% compound interest from the date it was due, till the date of its actual payment and a further direction to respondent no.2 to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed payment of G.P.F. amount to the petitioners from the date it was due, till the date of its actual payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are three in number, retired as Assistant Teachers in the year 2014, 2012 and 2013 respectively. He further submits that the G.P.F. amount was paid after a considerable delay i.e. after four months in the case of petitioner no.1, after 28 months in the case of petitioner no.2 and after 16 months in the case of petitioner no.3, therefore, the present writ petition was filed for payment of interest on delayed payment of G.P.F. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State submit that when the matter was taken up on 12.03.2025, the following order was passed :- "1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the following prayer:- "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 5 to ensure the payment of Group Insurance to the petitioners along with 18% compound interest from the date it was due till the date of its actual payment. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 2 to pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the delay payment of GPF amount to the petitioners, from the date it was due till the date of its actual payment."

2. It is argued by Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5- Senior Branch Manager Pension and Group Insurance Beema Ekai, Civil Lines, Allahabad that answering respondent has deposited the amount of Group Insurance Rs.4,324/- in respect of petitioner no. 1 on 08.05.2015, Rs.2,857/- in respect of petitioner no.2 on 23.02.2016 and Rs.3,535/- in respect of petitioner no. 3 on 08.05.2015 before Shiksha Nideshak Basic, U.P.

3. In this view of the matter, there is no delay on the part of Respondent No. 5 while depositing the Group Insurance amount to the petitioners. It is further argued that immediately after the relevant papers and documents of the petitioners have been received from the office of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, the Respondent No. 5 deposited the Group Insurance amount before the Shiksha Nideshak Basic, U.P..

4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that since there is no delay on the part of Respondent No. 5 to make the payment of amount of Group Insurance to the authorities as per the provisions contained under the Master Policy Executed between the parties, the Respondent No. 5 is not liable to make any payment of interest upon the Group Insurance amount to the petitioners.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5.

6. In view of the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that there was no delay on the part of the Respondent No. 5 to make the payment of GPF amount to the petitioners, hence the Respondent No. 5 is not liable to make any interest on the delayed payment of Gratuity.

7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed insofar as the prayer no. 1 as well as against the Respondent No. 5.

8. Insofar as the prayer no. 2 is concerned, a prayer has been made by Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that since she received instructions in the matter very recently, she prays for some time to seek further instructions in the matter.

9. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to seek instructions from Respondent No. 2 only in respect of prayer no. 2 is concerned.

10. List in the additional cause list on 26.03.2025." Accordingly, no delay is there on the part of respondent no.5 while depositing the group insurance amount to the petitioners and the respondent no.2 was the concerned officer who was directed to seek instructions with respect to delayed payment. Pursuant to which a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 wherein it was mentioned that there was delay on the part of the petitioners in filing pension papers. From the records also, it is clear that there was fault on part of the Principal of the institution i.e. respondent no.9 as is evident from orders annexed on page no.60 as well as page no.63 of the present writ petition. No details have been mentioned by the petitioners as to when the formalities of payment of post retiral benefits were completed, therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to issue any mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay the interest, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a fresh representation detailing about the dates as to when the formalities regarding payment of post retiral benefits were completed by the petitioners and the dates when the papers were forwarded by the Principal or the Manager of the institution before the authorities concerned along with the documents. In view of the above discussion, without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the documents so advised as well as certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2, i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj, raising all their grievances within a period of three weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. S.M.A. Abdy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Shikha Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5 as well as Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and perused the record. Mr. Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.8 is not present. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos.6, 7 and 9. The writ petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondent no.5 to ensure the payment of group insurance to the petitioners along with 18% compound interest from the date it was due, till the date of its actual payment and a further direction to respondent no.2 to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum for delayed payment of G.P.F. amount to the petitioners from the date it was due, till the date of its actual payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are three in number, retired as Assistant Teachers in the year 2014, 2012 and 2013 respectively. He further submits that the G.P.F. amount was paid after a considerable delay i.e. after four months in the case of petitioner no.1, after 28 months in the case of petitioner no.2 and after 16 months in the case of petitioner no.3, therefore, the present writ petition was filed for payment of interest on delayed payment of G.P.F. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State submit that when the matter was taken up on 12.03.2025, the following order was passed :- "1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alias with the following prayer:- "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 5 to ensure the payment of Group Insurance to the petitioners along with 18% compound interest from the date it was due till the date of its actual payment. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent no. 2 to pay the interest @ 18% per annum on the delay payment of GPF amount to the petitioners, from the date it was due till the date of its actual payment."

2. It is argued by Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5- Senior Branch Manager Pension and Group Insurance Beema Ekai, Civil Lines, Allahabad that answering respondent has deposited the amount of Group Insurance Rs.4,324/- in respect of petitioner no. 1 on 08.05.2015, Rs.2,857/- in respect of petitioner no.2 on 23.02.2016 and Rs.3,535/- in respect of petitioner no. 3 on 08.05.2015 before Shiksha Nideshak Basic, U.P.

3. In this view of the matter, there is no delay on the part of Respondent No. 5 while depositing the Group Insurance amount to the petitioners. It is further argued that immediately after the relevant papers and documents of the petitioners have been received from the office of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, the Respondent No. 5 deposited the Group Insurance amount before the Shiksha Nideshak Basic, U.P..

4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that since there is no delay on the part of Respondent No. 5 to make the payment of amount of Group Insurance to the authorities as per the provisions contained under the Master Policy Executed between the parties, the Respondent No. 5 is not liable to make any payment of interest upon the Group Insurance amount to the petitioners.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 5.

6. In view of the facts as narrated above, the Court is of the opinion that there was no delay on the part of the Respondent No. 5 to make the payment of GPF amount to the petitioners, hence the Respondent No. 5 is not liable to make any interest on the delayed payment of Gratuity.

7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed insofar as the prayer no. 1 as well as against the Respondent No. 5.

8. Insofar as the prayer no. 2 is concerned, a prayer has been made by Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that since she received instructions in the matter very recently, she prays for some time to seek further instructions in the matter.

9. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to seek instructions from Respondent No. 2 only in respect of prayer no. 2 is concerned.

10. List in the additional cause list on 26.03.2025." Accordingly, no delay is there on the part of respondent no.5 while depositing the group insurance amount to the petitioners and the respondent no.2 was the concerned officer who was directed to seek instructions with respect to delayed payment. Pursuant to which a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 wherein it was mentioned that there was delay on the part of the petitioners in filing pension papers. From the records also, it is clear that there was fault on part of the Principal of the institution i.e. respondent no.9 as is evident from orders annexed on page no.60 as well as page no.63 of the present writ petition. No details have been mentioned by the petitioners as to when the formalities of payment of post retiral benefits were completed, therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to issue any mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to pay the interest, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a fresh representation detailing about the dates as to when the formalities regarding payment of post retiral benefits were completed by the petitioners and the dates when the papers were forwarded by the Principal or the Manager of the institution before the authorities concerned along with the documents. In view of the above discussion, without going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the documents so advised as well as certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2, i.e. District Basic Education Officer, Kannauj, raising all their grievances within a period of three weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the respondent no.2 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, by reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad