IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.12.2010 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU Writ Petition No.44111 of 2006 (O.A.No.7962 of 2000) S.Krishnan .. Petitioner Vs Secretary to Government Home(Police II) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9 .. Respondent Prayer:-This writ petition has been originally filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal O.A.No.7962 of 2000 and transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.44111 of 2006 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to pay the petitioner 18% interest on his entire retirement benefits such as pension, Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Commutation of pension, Special Provident Fund and other retirement benefits from the period 01.12.1998 till date and also direct the respondent to pay cost. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Ravi For respondent ... Mr.R.Murali Govt.Advocate O R D E R The petitioner was working as an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Salem City. He was to retire from service on 30.11.1998. But, however, in view of the Chief Office memo dated 27.11.1998, he was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him. Subsequently, in respect of the charge memo dated 13.04.1993, the petitioner gave his explanation and thereafter, the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government by a further order dated 03.06.1998 called for further explanation. On receipt of such explanation on 05.08.1998, the State Government issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.910 Home Department dated 21.10.1999. 2. The charge against the petitioner was that he was slack in his supervision over the Sub-Inspector of Police viz., Kunjan and Aronraj of the Kundadam Police Station, Law and Order, Dharapuram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circle during his tenure, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharapuram from 16.04.1990 to 20.12.1990. 3. The Government on the basis of the enquiry report and the explanation of the petitioner considered that they decided to accept the finding of the enquiry officer and held that the charges were not of very grave involving corruption or moral turpitude and it related only to an administrative lapse and accordingly took a lenient view and further action was stopped. 4. After the retirement of the petitioner, the petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension during the period the proceedings pending. Subsequently, he was paid DCRG. The Government itself held that for the period 01.02.2000 to 30.06.2000, there was a delay in the payment of DCRG. As per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, he was paid interest. The petitioner not satisfied with the same, filed O.A.No.7962 of 2000 before the Tribunal and sought for payment of interest at the rate of interest at 18% per annum for the delayed payment of pension, commutation of pension and Provident Fund. 5. The O.A., was admitted on 09.11.2000 and in view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.44111 of 2006. 6. With reference to the non grant of interest, in paragraph 8 and 9 of the reply affidavit, it was stated as follows:- " 8. With regard to the averments of the applicant in paragraphs 6(5) to 6(7) of the application, it is submitted that the delay in disposal of the disciplinary case was due to administrative exigencies, neither wanton nor international. The applicant is not put to any monetary loss or hardship. He was paid provisional pension as per rules till regular pension was sanctioned. All terminal benefits due to the applicant had been settled after due process as explained in the foregoing paragraphs. Proposal for sanction of interest on DCRG has been considered as per rules and sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.767, Home dated 23.06.2002. There is no provision in rule to sanction interest on other retirement benefits. 9. With regard to the averments made in grounds (a) to (d) of the application, it is submitted that it is not true to say that the applicant was exonerated of the charges levelled against him. As explained in the foregoing paragraphs, the charges against him were held proved. Though the charges were for slackness in duty and the slackness led to indiscipline among his subordinates, the Government took a lenient view and dropped further action considering that the charges against the applicant did not involve more turpitude or corruption on the part of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applicant. Consequent to dropping of further action on the disciplinary case terminal benefits due to the applicant had been settled after due process. Proposals for sanction of interest on DCRG has been considered and sanctioned vide G.O.Ms.No.767, Home dated 23.08.2002. " 7. In the light of the above, the only question to decide is whether the petitioner is eligible for interest on the alleged delayed payment of terminal benefits. 8. Mr.S.Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Government of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another Vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 to support the payment with interest. 9. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner on two grounds. The first ground was that even before the retirement, the petitioner was facing charges and he was allowed to retire without prejudice to the disciplinary action on the basis of the explanation and the enquiry report. The Government itself took a lenient view and during the proceedings, he was paid provisional pension. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was deprived of total pension due to deliberate delay. So far as interest on DCRG is concerned, the Pension Rules itself provides for interest. Therefore, the Government on its own granted interest for the period ignoring a fraction. The second ground is when the petitioner himself is responsible for disciplinary action, in which he was let off on the ground of leniency and also the period, which, he was enjoying provisional pension, it cannot be said that for want of bonafide reasons, on the part of the respondent in releasing the terminal benefits with considerable delay. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not relevant to the case on hand. 10. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nvsri https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To Secretary to Government Home(Police II) Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 1 cc To Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate, SR.89074 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.89777 W.P.No.44111 of 2006 (O.A.No.7962 of 2000) kj(co) pmk.5.1.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/