M.Palaniswamy vs Secretary To Government

S.M.Subramaniam, J

The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of interest on belated settlement of terminal and pensionary benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition.

The petitioner states that he entered service as a directly recruited Gramasevak Grade-I on 02.06.1989. He was promoted as Extension Officer in the year 1992 and further promoted to the post of Block Development Officer in the year 1997.

On initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was placed under suspension in G.O.(2D).No.120, Rural Development Department dated 29.05.1998, a day prior to his date of superannuation i.e on 31.05.1998. After completion of the departmental enquiry on 22.01.2003, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service with effect form 31.05.1998. The departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner ended with an order of punishment of cut in pension at Rs.200/- per month for a period of 24 months as per the Government order issued in G.O.(D).No.572, Rural Development (E6) Department dated 03.12.2003.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was due for his superannuation on 31.05.1998 and the retirement benefits due to him were paid belatedly during the year 2003. As per the Government order in force in G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance Department dated 20.02.1995, the petitioner is entitled to get Compound Interest at 12% per annum for the payment of Gratuity amount. He is also entitled for interest on all other retirement benefits including Special Provident Fund, Commutation of pension. In this regard, the petitioner made number of representation and no order was passed by the respondents. Thus, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.31551 of 2015 and this Court directed the respondents on 06.10.2015, to consider the representation and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the impugned order dated 08.06.2016, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner has been issued and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

The learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the petitioner is entitled for interest on all the belated settlement of pensionary benefits. The petitioner received the pensionary benefits in the year 2003 and the benefits, which all are to be settled in the year 1998 were also not settled regarding leave salary etc., and for the said amount, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of his retirement and in respect of Gratuity, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of passing of the final order in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner ended with an order of punishment of cut-in-pension in the year 2003. The charges were held proved against the writ petitioner and based on the proved charges, the Government imposed punishment in G.O.(D).No.572, Rural Development (E6) Department dated 03.12.2003. The punishment of cut in pension was imposed under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Immediately after the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, all the retirement benefits were sanctioned to the petitioner during July and August of the year 2004.

Due to the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner, the retirement benefits were not settled and therefore, there is no fault on the part of the respondents.

As per G.O.122, Finance Department, dated 20.02.1995, interest for belated DCRG could be claimed only when the delay could not be attributed to the individual. But as far as the petitioner is concerned, the delay is due to pending of disciplinary action against him and the disciplinary proceedings eventually ended up with a punishment. Hence, interest could not be claimed for the belated payment of retirement benefits namely gratuity, commutation of pension, Special Provident Fund, encashment of earned / unearned leave as sought for by the petitioner.

The petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras in W.P.No.28683 of 2013 to pay compound interest @ 12% p a. for the belated payment of retirement benefits namely Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, Commutation of Pension, Special Provident Fund, Encashment of Earned and Unearned Leave and the above wit petition is pending disposal before the High Court.

The petitioner has again filed a writ petition in W.P No.31551 of 2015 for issue of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compound interest at 12% per annum for the delayed payment of retiral benefits in the light of the representation made by him on 24.06.2013 within a reasonable time. The Court at the time of admission on 06.10.2015 had issued an order which read as follows:-

“Though the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, permits the petitioner to submit one more representation by enclosing a copy of this order as well as the copy of the earlier representation dated 24.06.2013 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the respondents, who on receipt of the same, consider the said representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner.”

The petitioner after receiving the order copy made a representation requesting to grant interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits. The first respondent disposed of the petitioner's representation in letter No.28865/E6(1)/2015-5, dated 08.06.2016, rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that there is no delay in payment of gratuity based on Sub Rule (i) of the 1 (A) of the Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which reads as follows:

(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 proceedings 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.

Aggrieved by the above order of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition before this Court

After the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was sanctioned encashment of leave and Special Provident Fund during April 2003 and Death cum Retirement Gratuity and Commutation value of pension during the months of July and August of 2004 as per rules in force. It is submitted that as per Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, G.O.Ms.No.510, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 27.06.1995 and G.O.175, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 01.04.2004, a retired official, whose payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity was delayed for want of disposal of charges and who was subsequently exonerated of charges will be paid compound interest per annum at the rate of interest admissible for General Provident Fund of relevant years. But, as far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the charges framed against him were finalized with a punishment of a cut of Rs.200/- from his monthly pension for a period of 2 years at his consent only. In the light of the instructions contained in item (i)(c) of Sub Rule (1-A) of Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, an individual is entitled for payment of interest on the Death cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), if the period between the date of issue of orders by the competent authority allowing payment of DCRG and the date of actual payment is exceeding 3 months. As far as the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the period between the date of issue of orders by the Competent Authority allowing payment of DCRG (i.e 06.07.2004) and date of actual payment (i.e. 16.08.2004) is within the stipulated time of 3 months. As such the petitioner is not entitled to claim the interest as per the provisions in Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

In view of the fact that the departmental disciplinary proceedings ended against the writ petitioner in G.O.(D).No.572, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E6) Department dated 03.12.2003, punishment was imposed. Subsequently, the Encahsment of Earned Leave and Encashment of UEL on P/A were settled on 16.04.2003, Special Provident Fund was settled on 07.05.2003 and Commutation was paid on 28.07.2004 and all the benefits were settled with the permissible time limit and there was no delay on the part of the respondents in settling the pensionary benefits due to the writ petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim interest for the period from his date of superannuation i.e., from the year 1998 and the date of disposal of the disciplinary proceedings on 31.12.2003 as the departmental disciplinary proceedings were pending during the said period. After disposal of the departmental disciplinary proceedings, the benefits were settled without any delay. Thus, the reasons stated in the order impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of interest on settlement of pensionary benefits is in consonance with the Rules and Government orders in force and there is no infirmity as such.

Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

No costs.