S. Mangalam vs The Secretary

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking payment of DCRG amount of Rs. 20,000/- payable to her in pursuant to her superannuation while working with the first respondent.

It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 5 that the said amount has already been paid in the year 2011. The petitioner thereafter filed an application in M.P. No. 1 of 2013 for amending the prayer in the main Writ Petition seeking payment of interest for the delayed payment.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the main relief sought for in the Writ Petition filed originally has become infructuous, in view of the delay occasioned on the part of the respondents, suitable interest will have to be paid. In support of his contention, reliance has been made on the decision of this Court reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 1561 (Government of Tamil Nadu V.M. Deivasigamani).

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 5 submit that there is no wilful or deliberate action or inaction on the part of the respondents. Till the year 2005, the petitioner could not be paid the amount, as a sum of Rs. 6,066/- was due from her by way of wrong increment paid. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the same in the year 2004, though she retired in the year 2002. However, in view of the money decree obtained in the year 2004 against the petitioner, the same could not be paid. Thereafter, the said amount was paid as the money decree would not act as a bar for such payment. The petitioner was asked to produce a copy of the decree, which she did not do so. Therefore, the decree cannot be put against the respondents.

Admittedly, the petitioner has been paid the amount, which has been sought for in the Writ Petition filed originally and hence the Writ Petition in so far as the payment of DCRG amount has become infructuous. The only question remains to be seen is payment of interest as sought for in the amendment application in M.P. No. 1 of 2013.

In view of the discussion made above, it is clear that the respondents have not withheld the payment purposely. At least, till the year 2005, there was due from the petitioner. The petitioner has acknowledged the said fact and paid the same. Therefore, the question is the delay from 2005 till 2011, when the payment was actually made.

A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 and 5 shows that the petitioner was asked to produce the decree rendered in O.S. No. 403 of 2004 dated 14.04.2005. The petitioner did not produce the same. Therefore, considering the above, this Court is of the view that the respondents cannot be faulted with as there is no deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in withholding the payment due to the petitioner.

Hence, this Court is not inclined to order interest, however, the payment made to the petitioner is recorded. The decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has to be applied on the facts and circumstances of the case therein and the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2013 is also dismissed.