AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner was working in the Primary Health Centre at Muppuli, Villupuram District.
The grievance of the petitioner was that though he got retired from service on 30.09.1995, his pension and D.C.R.G. were settled with
considerable delay and therefore, he is entitled for interest on delayed payment at the rate of 24% per annum. He moved Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal with O.A. No. 4269 of 1997. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed a reply statement, dated
09.02.1998, denying the liability of the respondents to pay any interest. In paragraph 8, the respondents have averred various steps taken by them
in granting gratuity, which reads as follows:
Date of retirement of the applicant ... 30.09.95
Date of receipt of Pension proposals
from the applicant ... 9.2.96
Date of forwarding the pension proposals
by the Medical Officer, Primary Health
Centre, Muppuli to the Accountant
General ... 14.2.96
Date of receipt of Adminissibility
report from the Accountant General ... 10.4.96
Date of receipt of authorisation from
the Accountant General for pension
and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity ... 17.7.96
Date of presentation of Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity Bill to Treasury ... 9.8.96
Date of settlement of Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity ... 13.8.96
On Tribunal being abolished, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 29717 of 2006. Mr. A.L.
Namasivayam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the courts have been granting interest if there was delay in settlement
of terminal benefits. He has also submitted that even if 24% claim made by the petitioner is unreasonable, the court can fix a reasonable percentage
of interest. It must be understood that the court cannot give any direction contrary to the statutory Rules in this regard. So far as the interest on the
delayed payment of gratuity is concerned, it is covered by Rule 45(A) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, but in respect of pension and other
benefits, there are no rules, which provide for any interest being granted. Even otherwise, the court must be convinced that there must be an
unreasonable delay on the part of the respondents in settling the terminal benefits.
In the present case, this court is of the opinion that there is no unreasonable delay in settling the terminal benefits of the petitioner, but so far as
the interest on D.C.R.G is concerned, since the Rule itself provides for interest to be paid, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the
representation sent by the petitioner through his Counsel dated 12.6.1996 in the light of Rule 45(A) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules only in the matter
of granting D.C.R.G. and pay interest as indicated thereon, if not already paid. The respondents shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ petition stands allowed only to the extent as indicated above.
No costs. It is made clear there there is no liability on the part of the respondents in paying any interest on the question of alleged delay in paying
pension and other terminal benefits.