STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. v. M. PADMANABHAN NAIR

The Order of the Court was delivered by c

f. TuLZAPURKAR, J. Pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Govenment to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. Usually the delay occurs by reason of non-production of the

- L.P.C. (Last Pay Certificate) and the N.L.C. (No Liability Certi- ficate) from the concerned Departments but both these docu- ments pertain to matters, records whereof would be with the concerned Government Departments. Since the date of retirement of every Government servant is very much known in advance we fail to appreciate why lhe process of collecting the requisite infor- mation and issuance of these two documents should not be completed atleast a week before the date of retirement so that the payment of gratuity amount could be made to the Government F servant on the date he retires or on the followmg day and pension at the expiry of the following month. The necoss,ty for prompt payment of the retirement dues to a Government servant immediately after his retirement cannot be over-emphasised and it would not be • unreasonable to diriect that the liability to pay penal interest on t ese dues at the current market rate should commence at the expiry of G two months from the date of retirement.

The instant case is a glaring instance of snch culpable delay in the settlement of pension and grotuity claims due to the respon- dent who retired on 19.5.1913. His pension and gratuity were ultimately paid to him on 14.8.1975, i.e., more than two years and 3 montlls after his retirement and hence after serving lawyer's notice H

478 SPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 2 S.C.R,

A he filed a suit mainly to recover interest by. way of!iquidated damages for delayed payment. The appellants put the blame on the respondent for delayed payment on the ground that he had not produced the requisite L.P.C. (last pay certificate) from tl1e Treasury Office under Rule 186 of the Treasury Code. But on a plain reading of Rule 186, the Hi~h Court held-and in our view rightly-that a B duty was cast ou tho Treasury Officer to grant to every retirin• Government servant the last pay certificate which in this case had been delayed by the concerned officer for which neither any justi· ft.cation nor explanation had been given. The daim for interest was, therefore, rightly, decreed in respondent's favour.

Unfortunately such claim for interest that was allowed in c respondent's favour by the District Court and confirmed by the High Court was at the rate of 6 per cent per annum though interest at 12 per cent had; been claimed by the respondent in his suit. However, sirice the respondent acquiesced in his claim being decreed at 6 per cent by not preferring any cross objections in the High Court it could not be proper for us to enhance the rate to 12 per cent per annum which we were otherwise inclined to grant. · D We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the L.P.C. but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a·party defendant to the suit the Court is unable· to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public,

S.R. Petition dismissed,