IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.No.13861 of 2009 M.Nanjundan .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Buildings, IV Floor, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. .. Respondents. Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent as per letter No.2887/E6(1)2008 dated 25.02.2008 and order of the 2nd respondent in letter ROC No.116087/04/pension/2/ dated 13.02.2008 and quash the same thereby directing the respondents to sanction and pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. compounded annually for the belated payment of commuted pension of Rs.1,79,243/- for the period from 01.05.1996 to upto the date of payment. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Govt. Advocate O R D E R The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13.02.2008, which reads as under: From To Thiru Gagandeep Singh Bedi I.A.S., Thiru M.Nanjundan Director No.4/318, Nallampatti Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Samanoor (Post) Panagal Building, Saidapet, Palacode Taluk, Chennai – 600 015. Dharmapuri Dt.-636 806 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Roc.No.116087/04/Pension-2 dated 13.02.2008 Sir, Sub: Public Service – Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department – Thiru M.Nanjundan, formerly Block Development Officer, Hosur later Dy.C.E.O. - Dharmapuri District – Interest for belated payment of commutation regarding. Ref: 1. This Office Lr.No.116087/04/Pension-3 dated 07.03.2006. 2. Your representation dated 30.01.2008 With reference to your representation cited regarding sanctioning interest for the belated payment of Commutation Pension. It is informed that in G.O.(D)No.708, R.D.(E2) Department dated 03.08.2004, the Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj is directed to pay all the terminal benefits with interest as per Government Orders in force. As per Government Orders in force, interest is allowed for the belated payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity only. The fact has already been informed to you vide this office reference first cited. This is for your information. Sd/- For Director" 2. It is pleaded in the affidavit, that due date of retirement of the petitioner was 30.04.1996, but just before his retirement, he was served with charge memo on 23.04.1996, alleging misconduct of the year 1992. After issuance of charge sheet, no further action was taken for number of years, which forced the petitioner to approach learned Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, by filing O.A.No.2198 of 2000. 3. The application moved by the petitioner was allowed, and the charge sheet issued to the petitioner was ordered to be quashed. 4. Learned Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to pay all the retiral benefits, with interest as per Government Orders in force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. The case of the petitioner is that order of the learned Administrative Tribunal was not implemented, which resulted in filing of W.P.No.35067 of 2004, as the Tribunal was abolished. The writ petition was also allowed, and the respondents were directed to implement the order of the learned Administrative Tribunal. 6. It was after the order by this Court, that the respondents decided to drop charge sheet, and petitioner was allowed to retire with retrospective effect on 30.04.1996, which was his normal date of retirement. The order was also passed by the Government, directing payment of terminal benefits, along with interest as per the Government orders in force. 7. The petitioner was paid his retiral benefits along with interest, but no interest was paid on commuted pensions of Rs.1,79,243/-, though this was also paid after lapse of 10 years. 8. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7008 of 2007. This writ petition was also allowed, and direction was issued to the respondents, to pass orders on merits on the representation made by the petitioner, claiming interest for the delayed payment of commuted pensions. On the representation, impugned order, referred to above, has been passed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and that the petitioner has been harassed unnecessarily. The false charges were levelled against the petitioner, on account of which, the petitioner was denied payment of dues for number of years. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that when pensionary benefits are wrongly withheld by the Government, then the petitioner is always entitled to interest on delayed payment. 10. There is force in this contention, as it is not possible for Government to pass an order, for payment of interest on an amount illegally withheld, as no Government department has a right to withhold payable amount illegally. The claim of interest in such cases is inherent. 11. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Counsel, by contending that orders were earlier passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal as well as this Court, directing payment of retiral benefit along with interest as per G.Os. in force. As there is no G.O., providing for interest on payment of commuted pension, therefore, the petitioner was only entitled to pension without interest on the correct interpretation of the orders earlier passed by learned Administrative Tribunal and this Court. It is also the contention of learned Government Counsel that the impugned order is in consonance with orders passed by this Court. 12. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, charge sheet https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ issued to the petitioner was quashed by the learned Administrative Tribunal. In spite of quashing the charge sheet, the payment due to the petitioner was not released, therefore, petitioner had to approach this Court for getting an order to implement the order passed by learned Administrative Tribunal. 13. The action of the respondents, shows that the petitioner has been treated harshly, which, on the face of it, is arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There was absolutely no justification whatsoever to withhold the retiral benefits, once the petitioner was allowed to retire with retrospective effect, i.e. from due date. The order permitting petitioner to retire from due date would only mean that the petitioner was entitled to all the retiral benefits on the date of his retirement, and consequently, the petitioner would be entitled to interest on the delayed payment. Thus, impugned order, on the face of it, is arbitrary, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued, directing the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% on delayed payment of commuted pension, i.e. from due date till date of payment, within a period of two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ar To 1. The Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Buildings, IV Floor, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. + 1 cc to Mr.A.R.Nixan, Advocate sR.11227 + 1 cc to Government Pleader Sr.10984 W.P. No. 13861 of 2009 SV(CO) EU 21.4.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/