P.BOOPATHY(DIED), v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on 30.09.1969. At the time of retirement, he was working as Deputy Block Development Officer. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner in SCC.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. As per the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 27.01.2004 and 29.01.2004, on the verge of the petitioner's retirement, he was placed under suspension and also not permitted to retire from service. Since the criminal case is false, the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cell, Virudhunagar District, failed to prove the case. Therefore, in SCC No.2 of 2004 ended in acquittal on 09.06.2008. Thereafter, the third respondent by his proceedings, dated 16.04.2009 framed charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner. After enquiry, the said charge memo was dropped as per G.O.(D).No.

533 RD & PR (E2) Department, dated 08.11.2011. Then, the petitioner was permitted to retire service on 31.01.2004. He was paid the following retirement benefits, which follows:

3/8

Encashment on surrender of 25.06.2011 earned leave and leave on

private affairs

Death cum Retirement Gratuity 01.07.2013 Commutation of Pension 12.08.2013 Pension 13.08.2013

3. There is an delay in settling the petitioner's retirement benefits because of the fault on the part of the respondents. Thus, this petition has been filed seeking interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of retirement benefits. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced judgment reported in 2009 (3) MLJ (1) in the case of

Government of Tamil Nadu Vs., M.Devasigamani. The relevant portion reads thus:

"..........

6. The contention of the appellant that as per the Government norms, interest can be paid only on Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity, in case of delay and the same cannot be awarded to any other retiral benefits, is not tenable, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.K.Due v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44. In the reported case, the appellant therein was served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in

4/8

June 1998, few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.06.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, gratuity, etc. They were withheld till the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the absence of any statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 14 of the judgment, held as follows:

'14. 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 the 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.'

7. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory

5/8

rules/administrative instructions or guidelines and he can make his claim for interest, under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. "

He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (2) CWC 4001 in the case of

P.V.Mahadevan Vs., The Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai for the same proposition.

4. In response, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that there was no delay in disbursement of the petitioner's terminal and pensionary benefits. He was sanctioned pensionary benefits after issuance of Government Order (D).No.533 Rural Development (E2) and Panchayat Raj Department, dated 08.11.2011. The alleged delay in sanctioning of pensionary benefits is due to pendency of Vigilance case and Charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules against the petitioner. Therefore, the claim of interest for the delay payment of pensionary benefits cannot be sustained.

6/8

5. Considering the rival submissions and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra. In view of the judgment reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 37, It is made clear that an employee is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, even in the absence of any Statutory Rules/Administrative Instructions or guidelines. Once the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal and the charge memo was dropped, the delinquent Officer is deemed to have been in service continuously. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of his terminal and retirement benefits from his date of retirement on 31.01.2004. The respondent is directed to pay the amount due to the petitioner within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.Accordingly, the Writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

25.07.2022

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

7/8

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,

Rmk

To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,

Panagal Building,

Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.

3.The District Collector,

Virudhunagar District,

Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar. Order made in

W.P.(MD)No.12547 of 2014

Dated:

25.07.2022

8/8