1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.11.2016 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.No.23312 of 2010 M.K.Krishnan ..Petitioner /vs/ 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Thiruvallore Region, Thiruvallore-602 001. 3.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5854/A/2000-1, dated 16.06.2005 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to pay the interest on the belated disbursement of terminal benefits from 22.10.2002 to 09.09.2004 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu)Rules 1935 and further interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the interest amount claimed from 09.09.2004 till the date of payment. 2 For Petitioner :Mr.K.Premkumar For Respondents :Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, AGP -------- O R D E R The prayer in the writ petition is for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.5854/A/2000-1, dated 16.06.2005 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the interest on the belated disbursement of terminal benefits from 22.10.2002 to 09.09.2004 as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and General Provident Fund (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1935 and further interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the interest amount claimed from 09.09.2004 till the date of payment. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Livestock Inspector. After working at various places all over the State of Tamil Nadu, finally, he worked as Livestock Inspector Grade-I (Selection Grade) at the Veterinary Dispensary, Pandeswaram, Thiruvellore District i.e., under the 2nd respondent from 15.09.1997. 3 While so, at the verge of the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.07.2001 just three (3) days before the date of superannuation i.e. on 31.07.2001 and therefore, the petitioner was not allowed to retire from service on 31.07.2001 as per the orders of the 2nd respondent. The reason being that pursuant to the family dispute between the petitioner and his son-in-law, some complaint had been given and only pursuant to which, such action was taken by the petitioner's employer viz., 2nd respondent and accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension just before his retirement and he was not permitted to retire from service. 3. As against the said order, the petitioner had filed an original application in O.A.No.6304 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and the said Tribunal, after having considered the merits of the case, passed an order on 22.10.2002. The operative portion of the said order reads thus: "7. Therefore, the impugned orders of suspension and not permitting him to retire are set aside and the applicant is deemed to have retire with effect from 31.07.2001. The respondent is directed to settle the terminal benefits due to the applicant without any further delay. However, the applicant is 4 not entitled for interest for the delayed payment of terminal benefits. The two impugned orders are set aside. The respondent is directed to send proposals to the A.G for disbursement of terminal benefits and also for grant of pension without any further delay." 4. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the petitioner had been requesting to the respondents for necessary order permitting him to retire and also to disburse his retirement and other benefits. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner had to file a contempt application in Cont.A.No.169 of 2003 before the Tribunal. It was represented on behalf of the respondents that an order permitting the petitioner to retire had been passed on 04.03.2004 and the petitioner had already been disbursed Family Benefit Fund of Rs.1,00,000/-, Encashment of Earned Leave and the amount due under the Special Provident Fund. The other terminal benefits such as Provident Fund, D.C.R.G and all other things are to be sanctioned by the Accountant General and in this regard, a proposal would be sent to the Accountant General for necessary action. Having considered the said submission made on behalf of the respondents, the Tribunal closed the contempt petition by directing the respondents to send the proposal immediately to the Accountant General, without any further 5 delay and get the sanction and disburse the same as early as possible. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner on 14.09.2004 had sent a representation to the respondents stating that pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, dated 22.10.2002, the petitioner was allowed to retire by the orders of the respondents dated 04.03.2004 and the amounts have been disbursed in the following heads with huge delay. In the said representation, the petitioner has given the heads under which the amounts were disbursed to the petitioner belatedly. S.No. Nature of Payment Payment Date Amount Rs. Delay period 1. Surrender of earned leave and unearned leave 31.03.2004 1,33,031.00 524 days 2. Special Provident Fund --- 18,771.00 524 days 3. DCRG Amount 21.05.2004 1,93,793.00 575 days 4. General Provident Fund 09.09.2004 64,880.00 675 days 4,10,475.00 6. Therefore, the petitioner in the said representation had requested the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a., for the total amount of Rs.4,10,475/-, which was disbursed to the petitioner belatedly. 6 7. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by its order dated 16.6.2005, which is impugned herein, wherein the 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 31.07.2001 i.e., the date on which, he attained superannuation by orders of the Governments i.e, the first respondent dated 04.03.2004 in br/e/f/vz;/5854/,/2000 and the salary for the suspended period also would be paid within one week. Therefore, there was no delay in making the payment of retirement benefits and therefore, there was no necessity to pay any interest for the said payment. 8. Challenging the said order dated 16.06.2005, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition for the aforesaid prayer. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state that even after the orders were passed by the Administrative Tribunal on 22.10.2002, wherein it was specifically directed to pay all 7 the pay benefits to the petitioner immediately, without any delay, it was delayed for more than a year and ultimately, it was paid some time in March, April, May and September 2004. Accordingly, there was a huge delay in making such payment. Since the petitioner being a retired Government servant, he was expecting these amounts for his livelihood, he was made to suffer for a long time, without getting his legal dues for his hard earned work, as he has put in service in the department for more than 36 years. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner would be entitled to claim the interest, as he has claimed for in the writ petition and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants the writ petition to be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relying on the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 stated that in the order dated 22.10.2002 of the Tribunal, it was specifically mentioned that the applicant (petitioner) was not entitled for any interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits, when there is a specific order of the Tribunal, which says that the amount to be paid to the petitioner and for making the same belatedly, it was not carrying any interest. The petitioner therefore is 8 not entitled to claim any interest. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would further contend that after the order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2002, clarification was sought for from the Government to comply with the order, for the reason that the disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner, as the same was initiated under the Pension Rules, that too for 17(B) charges and therefore, unless clarification is given by the Government, the disbursement of salary was not possible for respondents 2 and 3. The Government, after having considered the relevant merits of the issue, ultimately, passed the order dated 04.03.2004 directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to retire and also to continue the disciplinary proceedings proceeded against the petitioner, only thereafter, the amount was disbursed within 30 days, without any further delay. Therefore, absolutely, there is no reason to state that the amount was wantonly delayed for payment to the petitioner and therefore, he is not entitled for interest. Hence, the learned Additional Government Pleader prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 12. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective counsel. It is not in dispute that ultimately, order was passed by the Tribunal on 22.10. 2002 setting aside the order not to 9 permit the petitioner to retire from service and also held that the petitioner would be entitled for all pay benefits and that shall be paid without any further delay. Even though the Tribunal has said that the petitioner would not be entitled for interest for the belated payment for delay in the said order of the Tribunal, which meant that only the delay occurred till the passing of such order of the Tribunal, otherwise if the petitioner had been permitted to retire from service earlier, he would have received the benefits of his retirement at that time itself. 13. Even after the order of the Tribunal, though clarification was sought for by the immediate Superior of the petitioner i.e. The Joint Director (the 2nd respondent) on 26.11.2002 to the Director, who inturn asked for further clarification from the 1st respondent on 03.03.2003 the final order was kept pending atleast from 03.03.2003 i.e. from the date on which further clarification was sought for from the 1st respondent. Ultimately, the 1st respondent, after a year, passed an order on 01.03.2004 directing the 2nd respondent to proceed further to permit the petitioner to retire and also to continue the disciplinary proceedings. The belated decision taken by the Government on 01.03.2004, after keeping the file with them for one year, is not explained. Without any good reason if the Government takes such a 10 long time, even to take a decision in respect of the Government employee, who was retired already then certainly it would cause harm to the retired Government employee. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that atleast the petitioner would be entitled to claim interest from 03.03.2003 till the payment, which was made according to the petitioner on 31.03.2004 22.04.2004, 21.05.2004 as also on 09.09.2004 under various heads. 14. In the result, this writ petition is ordered with the following terms:- 1.That the petitioner shall be entitled to 6% interest for the belated payment under four heads viz., encashment of leave, special provident fund, gratuity and GPF, which were admittedly paid only on 31.03.2004, 22.04.2004, 21.05.2004 and 09.09.2004. This interest shall be calculated for the period, where the decision was pending at the first respondent i.e., from 03.03.2003 till 01.03.2004. 2.The interest therefore, shall be calculated at 11 the rate indicated above for the period mentioned above and the amount shall be paid to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall also be entitled for a further interest at the same rate till the payment is made. No costs. 11.11.2016 ari To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Animal Husbandry Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Thiruvallore Region, Thiruvallore-602 001. 3.The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 018. R.SURESH KUMAR, J. 12 ari W.P.No.23312 of 2005 11.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in