G. Subbiah vs The Accountant General (A and E), The Secretary to Government, Medical Department and The Joint Director of Medical and Rural Welfare Services and Family Welfare

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is the husband of one S. Nagajothi, who was working as a Pharmacist in the Medical and Rural Welfare Service under the control of the third Respondent. Unfortunately, the Petitioner''s wife expired on 15.08.2005 and the Petitioner has become eligible to get all other terminal benefits in accordance with the rules.

It is the case of the Petitioner that even though his wife had passed away as early as on 15.08.2005, her death -cum-retirement gratuity [in short "DCRG"] were not settled in her favour and there was a delay in the grant of such amount. It was stated by the Petitioner that after delaying the matter for one and half years, he was paid DCRG only on 05.02.2007 and hence, he is entitled for interest in terms of Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Since he was only paid DCRG and interest has been omitted, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

When the matter came up for hearing on 15.04.2009, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice for the Respondents. Accordingly, the third Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, dated 13.10.2009. In the counter-affidavit, it was stated that in the application form received by the Medical Officer, the date of death of the deceased wife was wrongly mentioned as "16.08.2005" instead of "15.08.2005". When this was pointed out, we took time to furnish the correct date of death and as soon as this clarification was made, the Accountant General sanctioned the DCRG within one month and the amounts have been paid and, therefore, there is no willful delay on their part. In paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit, it was averred as follows:

I respectfully submit that though there may be orders to the effect that the bereaved family should have been given the Death cum Retirement Gratuity amount within a period of one month from the date of death of the Government Servant, the unforeseen circumstances as stated above can delay the settlement inadvertently for which nobody can be held responsible. There was no intentional or deliberate delay anywhere in this case. Hence, the claim of the individual is not maintainable.

In the matter of grant of interest for the DCRG, it is squarely covered by Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which contemplates the different rates of interest and the possible delay that can be happened in the sanction of interest. Rule also gives exceptions to the various contingencies under which the interest payments can be avoided. In the present case, the Petitioner''s case do not come under any of the exceptions set out in the rule. In order to get interest on the DCRG, one need not blame any person or held responsibility to be fixed. The rule operates by itself by giving different time limit for payment of DCRG and the interest component is automatic. This has been clarified by the first Respondent office more than once to the State Government. For sanction of interest, they need not require the consent of the Accountant General. Further, under Rule 45-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, the Government is the authority competent to sanction interest.

In the light of the above factual matrix as well as the rule position, a direction is issued to the second Respondent to pass orders on the request of interest in terms of Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, in the case of the delayed payment of DCRG to the Petitioner and such an order shall be passed by the second Respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the result shall be communicated to the Petitioner, without fail.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs.