AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The petitioner joined as a Health Assistant in Karur Municipality in 1962. He was promoted as Sanitary Inspector
Grade - I in 1963, then as Sanitary Officer in 1990. He retired from service on 30.11.1994, while he was working in Sivaganga Municipality.
Though the petitioner retired in 1994, Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) was not given to him. Hence, he filed an Original Application in
O.A. No. 6131 of 1998 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and got a direction on 06.08.1998
to consider his representation dated 05.03.1998 regarding the payment of DCRG with interest.
It seems that the DCRG was not paid in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. However, the charges were dropped on
22.09.1998. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 42,372/- was paid by way of a cheque bearing No. 193988 dated 26.10.1998 drawn on Indian
Overseas Bank, towards DCRG.
The matter did not rest there. Thereafter, the first respondent issued an order dated 16.08.2001 to recover Rs. 11,642/- from the pension
payable to the petitioner, as the aforesaid amount was paid in excess of salary, while he was in service. Another order dated 23.10.2001 was
issued by the first respondent that there will be a recovery in installments every month from the pension towards the excess salary of Rs. 11,642/-
paid, while he was in service. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application in O.A. No. 291 of 2002 to quash both the orders dated
16.08.2001 and 23.10.2001 of the first respondent.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 5929 of 2007.
Heard the submissions made by Mr. R. Singaravelan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents.
While seeking to quash the impugned orders dated 16.08.2001 and 23.10.2001 of the first respondent, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondents are to be directed to pay interest on the DCRG. The petitioner submits that as per Rule 45-A of The Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978 the petitioner is entitled to interest on the DCRG, if it is paid belatedly. Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 is
extracted here under:
45-A. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity- [(1) Interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum shall be payable on the death-cum-retirement
gratuity paid beyond (a) period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant [...]].
[Provided that on and from the 12th June 1987, the rate of such interest shall be as follows:
(a) seven per cent per annum beyond a period of three months and upto one year; and
(b) ten per cent per annum beyond a period of one year:
Provided further that no such interest shall be payable:
(a) where the institution of departmental or judicial proceeding against the retiring Government servant concerned is pending; and
(b) for the fraction of a month.]
[(1-A). The period beyond which such interest is payable shall be as follows:
(i) in the case of a Government servant retired otherwise on superannuation and where the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is withheld on account
of disciplinary proceeding pending against him.:
(a) three months from the date of retirement where the Government servant is exonerated of all charges and where the Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity is paid on the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings;
(b) three months from the date of death where the disciplinary proceeding are dropped on account of death of a Government servant;
(c) three months from the date of issue of orders by the competent authority allowing payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity where the
Government servant is not fully exonerated on the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and where the competent authority desires to allow
payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity;
(ii) six months from the date of retirement of a Government servant otherwise than on superannuation under Fundamental Rule 56(2) or 56(3) or
Rules 33, 36, 38, 39 and 42 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978;
(iii) six months from the date of death of a Government servant while in service and where the delay is not caused on account of more than one
claimant;
(iv) three months from the date of issue of orders revising the emoluments where the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity already paid is
enhanced on account of revision of amoluments; and
(v) six months from the date of absorption in the case of permanent absorption in the Public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous bodies otherwise
than on enmass transfer on conversion of Government department or a part thereof into Public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous bodies.]
[(2) The Government shall be the authority competent to sanction such interest.]
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that there was no delay in the payment of DCRG and though the
petitioner retired in 1994, it was paid in 1998, since disciplinary proceedings was pending against the petitioner. The learned Additional
Government Pleader further submits that as soon as the charges where dropped, the respondents immediately paid the amount and that therefore
the petitioner is not entitled to interest on the DCRG.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner replies that since the Rule provides for payment of interest for belated payment of DCRG, the
respondents are bound to pay the interest, whatever be the reason for the delay. He also submits that particularly when the charges where dropped
and no punishment was inflicted on the petitioner, the respondents are bound to pay interest.
I am in agreement when the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Further, the Hon''ble Apex Court in an identical matter, where the terminal benefits were paid after four years, directed the payment of interest
in S.K. Dua Vs. State of Haryana and Another,
. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
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.
Therefore, the respondents are bound to pay interest.
As far as the other question whether the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned order for recovery of Rs. 11,642/- towards the
alleged excess salary paid during the service of the petitioner, the respondents do not even give the details as to how the excess payment was
made and the periods for which the excess payment was made.
In any event, the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned order for recovery of certain amount that was paid long back, while the
petitioner was in service, particularly when the amount was not paid to the petitioner pursuant to misrepresentation made by him. If the excess
amount paid to the petitioner was not due to any misrepresentation on the part of petitioner, the respondents are not justified in effecting recovery,
that too after his retirement, after a very long time.
In this connection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Shyam Babu Verma and
Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,
and para 11 of the said Judgment is extracted here under:
Although we have held that the petitioners were entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission w.e.f. January 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10 years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-560 but as they have
received the scale of Rs 330-560 since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January 1,
1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover any excess amount which has already been paid to them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps
should be taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid to the petitioners due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners being in no
way responsible for the same.
In these circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay interest on the DCRG
as per the existing Rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.