1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P(MD)No.13234 of 2011 Dr.S.N.Mohan .. Petitioner Vs. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse all the retirement benefits including provisional pension as per Rule 60 of the Pension Rules within a specified time frame and the respondent is at liberty to pass orders on the pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9(2)(a) of the pension rules. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Visvalingam For Respondent : Mr.TR.Janarthanam Additional Government Pleader O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Dr.S.N.Mohan under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse all the retirement benefits including provisional pension as per Rule 60 of the Pension Rules within a specified time frame and the respondent is at liberty to pass orders on the pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9(2) (a) of the pension rules. 2. Heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.TR.Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. 3. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner Dr.S.N.Mohan, who was allowed to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011 has not received any pension and other retirement benefits for nearly seven months. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even before the petitioner reached the age of superannuation, the charges were framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules in reference No.98172/SC1/1/2002, dated 25.11.2004. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.06.2005. Subsequently, the enquiry officer also submitted his report on 04.10.2010 and on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner also submitted his further representation on 29.03.2011. Therefore, when all the process were over, except passing the final order on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that having allowed the petitioner to retire from service on 30.04.2011, they cannot retain the retirement benefits including the provisional pension. In support of his argument, he has also brought to the notice of this Court two judgments of this Court passed in Y.Raja Vs. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madurai Region, Madurai reported in 2011(1) CTC 18, in and by which this Court in paragraph 20 has held as follows: "In view of the above, this Writ Appeal must succeed and the order of the learned Single Judge should be set aside to the limited extent. However, with clarification that the pending Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent shall be deemed to be a proceeding initiated under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules and the same may be continued, which may result in any order under Rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules. However, pending the said Disciplinary proceedings, the Appellants shall disburse all the retirement benefits to the respondent including the provisional pension as provided in the Pension Rules." and another unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.A. (MD)No.693 of 2011 dated 17.08.2011 in the case of the Revenue Divisional Officer and another Vs. S.Sathish also shows that this Court has consistently followed the same view as mentioned in the earlier judgment, by giving direction to the Department to disburse all the retirement benefits including provisional pension in accordance with Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Therefore, on the same basis, the petitioner's similar relief needs to be allowed. 6. Admittedly it is a case where the petitioner, who served as Civil Surgeon in Dr.Muthulakshmi Memorial District Head Quarters Hospital, Pudukottai, was allowed to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011. Even before the date of superannuation, the petitioner faced departmental proceedings, as mentioned earlier, the disciplinary proceedings also came to an end by filing the report by the enquiry officer on 04.10.2010, for which the petitioner also submitted his further explanation on 29.03.2011. Therefore, the only impediment which holds back the disbursement of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the retirement benefits including provisional pension is the non- passing of final order on the disciplinary proceedings. As it is also held by the above mentioned two judgments, that there cannot be any impediment for releasing the provisional pension, during the pendency of departmental proceedings, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent to disburse the retirement benefits including the provisional pension in accordance with Rule 60 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with further direction to the respondent to pass appropriate order on the pending disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. +1 CC to Special Government Pleader (SR.No.40884) W.P(MD)No.13234 of 2011 21.11.2011 ssl NSV/4.1.12/3P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/