Madras High Court
Dr.D.Adiroubane vs The Union Of India on 22 November, 2018
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 16.11.2018
Pronounced on : 22.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.33325 of 2012
Dr.D.Adiroubane
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to Government (Agriculture),
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture (Karaikal),
Society, Rep.by its Chairman cum Chief Secretary to
Government, Chief Secretariat,
Puducherry.
4. The Dean
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture & Research
Institute, Serumavilangai, Nedungadu Post,
Karaikal – 609 603.
5. The Director of Accounts and Treasuries
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry
6. The Under Secretary to Government
Agriculture Department
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
7. The Director of Agriculture
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry
Puducherry.
8. The Secretary to Government
Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare,
New Delhi.
9. The Secretary to Government
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,
Government of Union Territory of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
... Respondents
PRAYER:Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the
issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of
4th respondent relating to the impugned orders dated 13.09.2012 bearing
Ref.No.3478/PJN/E1/DA/2012, dated 28.05.2012 bearing
Ref.No.6766/PJN/Estt/E1/2012-13, dated 10.09.2012 bearing
Ref.No.6176/PNJ/Estt/E1/2012-12 and the order of the 6th respondent dated
14.02.2012 bearing Ref.No.49063/CS(Agri)2011/A1, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondents herein to disburse all the retiral benefits due
to the petitioner including death cum retirement, Gratuity, Pension, Earned Leave
encashment, Insurance scheme maturity amounts and all such sums as may be
payable to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum
w.e.f.01.09.2012 till date of disbursement.
For Petitioner :: Mr.Sai Bharath
for Mr.Kamala Kumar
For RR1&R8 :: Mr.G.Karthikeyan
(Assistant Solicitor General)
For RR2-R7 & R9 :: Mr.Syed Mustafa
(Government Pleader Puducherry)
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
ORDER
The writ petition had been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the 4th respondent, the Dean, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture and Research Institute, (PAJANCOA & RI), Serumavilangai, Nedungadu Post, Karaikal, relating to the impugned orders dated 13.09.2012 bearing Ref.No.3478/PJN/E1/DA/2012, dated 28.05.2012 bearing Ref.No.6766/PJN/Estt/E1/2012-13, dated 10.09.2012 bearing Ref.No.6176/PNJ/Estt/E1/2012-12, and also the order of the 6th respondent, the Under Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, dated 14.02.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner including death cum retirement, Gratuity, Pension, Earned Leave encashment, Insurance scheme maturity amounts together with interest of 18% per annum with the effect from 01.09.2012, till date of disbursement.
2. The petitioner Dr.D.Adiroubane was initially appointed as Agricultural Instructor on ad-hoc basis in the Farmers Training Programme, Department of Agriculture, Government of Puducherry on 19.11.1973. Subsequently, he was appointed as Agricultural Officer on 24.06.1981. He worked as such till 04.11.1990. On 05.11.1990, he was deputed to the (PAJANCOA & RI), Karaikal, as Assistant Professor. He was absorbed in the post of Assistant Professor on 11.09.1996. For the service rendered at the Department of Agriculture, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Government of Puducherry, he was sanctioned proportionate pro-rata retirement benefits with effect from 05.11.1990 and he was asked to exercise an option to receive either pro-rata monthly pension or lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension. He exercised the option to receive lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension.
3. He had also submitted his technical resignation from the post of Agricultural Officer on 26.05.1997. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 7th respondent namely, the Director of Agriculture, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry issued an order on 28.06.2001 calling for an option and as stated above the petitioner opted to receive lump sum amount. The petitioner retired with effect from 31.08.2012, after putting 16 years, 11 months and 18 days of service under the 7th respondent namely, the Director of Agriculture and 21 years, 10 months in the PAJANCOA & RI for a total service of 38 years and 9 months without any break.
4. The petitioner claimed that he was not paid any retiral benefits, with respect to the Leave Salary Encashment. The 4th respondent stated that a sum of Rs.3,47,263/- had been over paid to him and therefore the eligible sum of Rs.3,37,525/- cannot be paid to him. Similarly, by the impugned order dated 13.09.2012, the 4th respondent namely the Dean, PAJANCOA & RI replied that the death cum retirement gratuity has not been extended to the society by the Government. It was stated that request for settlement would be considered only http://www.judis.nic.in 5 after such extension. With respect to pension, the 6th respondent namely, the Under Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, stated that the matter is sub-judice before this Court in W.P.No.13571 of 2011. The 4th respondent also stated by impugned order 28.05.2012, that there is no pension scheme in the 3rd respondent institution.
5. Claiming that the respondents had failed to consider that the petitioner was eligible for pension even before deputation to PAJANCOA & RI, and further claiming that he was also entitled to death cum retirement gratuity, the petitioner had stated that it was highly improper on the part of the respondents to deny the petitioner all his retirement benefits after his superannuation. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner had come forward to file the present writ petition.
6. The 4th respondent namely, the Dean, PAJANCOA & RI, alone filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, after tracing out the employment details of the petitioner, it had been stated that the petitioner was asked to exercise an option to either receive pro-rata monthly pension or to receive lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension. It was stated that the petitioner exercised the option to receive lump sum amount. He had requested transfer of the said amount to PAJANCOA & RI, for opening of pension account. Thereafter in the counter affidavit, in para 5 in a bold underlined sentence, the 4 th respondent stated as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 “But no action was initiated by Dr.D.Adiroubane to receive the lump sum amount from Agriculture Department Puducherry so far.”
7. It was then stated that the General Provident Fund and pension funds had been extended to PAJANCOA & RI and that the petitioner had also contributed to the GPF scheme both while in service at PAJANCOA & RI and also while in service in his parent department prior to his absorption as Assistant Professor. It was stated that Non-Teaching Employees Association of PAJANCOA & RI filed W.P.13571 of 2011 seeking implementation of pension scheme. It was stated that the writ petition was pending in this Court. It was therefore stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to.
8. With respect to leave encashment, it was stated that the petitioner was promoted from Assistant Professor to Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) with effect from 05.11.1996 and from Assistant Professor (Senior Scale) to Associate Professor with effect from 30.06.2000. He was then promoted from Associate Professor to Professor on 24.03.2008. It was stated that the Account General Audit had objected to the promotion and had directed recovery of excess payment made consequent to the promotion to the post of Professor. It was stated that since there was no pension scheme in the institution, the earned leave encashment was with held after obtaining necessary orders from Chief Secretary PAJANCOA & RI. It was further stated that two increments had been http://www.judis.nic.in 7 sanctioned from 30.05.1998 whereas they should have been sanctioned only from 27.07.1998. It was stated that a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the senior scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader (Associate Professor) only if he had completed 5 years of service in the senior scale with Ph.D. It was stated that the actual date on which the petitioner was eligible for being posted as Associate Professor was 27.07.2003, but he had been promoted on 13.06.2000. It was stated that the over payment in the salary had to be recovered from the earned leave encashment which amounted to Rs.3,37,525/. It was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed.
9. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.Sai Bharath for Mr.Kamala Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Karthikeyan learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 8 and Mr.Syed Mustafa learned Government Pleader, Puducherry for respondents 2 – 7 & 9.
10. Mr.Sai Bharath, learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the facts as stated above and pointed out that the petitioner had been in continuous service without any break from 19.11.1973, when he was initially appointed as Agricultural Instructor on ad-hoc basis till his date of retirement on 31.08.2012. He had put in 16 years, 11 months and 18 days of service in the Agriculture Department and after deputation to PAJANCOA & RI, had put in 21 years, 10 months of service in the said society. He had served for a total period of 38 years and 9 months. It had been stated that he was not paid any pension http://www.judis.nic.in 8 or retirement benefits and consequently, the learned counsel stated that the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be questioned by the respondents and further stated that the benefits must be granted with interest @ 18% per annum.
11. Mr.G.Karthikeyan, learned Assistant Solicitor General pointed out that it is a dispute purely between the petitioner and respondents 2 – 7 and 9. The learned Assistant Solicitor General pointed out that the Union of India was only a formal party. The Court has to place on record its deep appreciation for the valuable inputs provided during the course of arguments.
12. Mr.Syed Mustafa, learned Government Pleader, Puducherry who represented respondents 2 – 7 and 9 stated that the petitioner was given the option to receive pro-rata monthly pension or lump sum amount and though he had opted to receive lump sum amount, he had not taken any action to receive the lump sum amount from the Agricultural Department, Puducherry. The learned Government Pleader also stated that Non-Teaching Employees Association of PAJANCOA & RI filed W.P.No.13571 of 2011 seeking implementation of pension scheme. The case is still pending in this Court and it was therefore pointed out the petitioner's request cannot be granted. It was stated that the Audit Department had objected to the grant of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Professor. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner was eligible for promotion as Professor only on 27.07.2003, but he was promoted to the post of Professor on 13.06.2000 itself. Claiming that money was actually recoverable from the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader insisted that the Court should dismiss the writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 9
13. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
14. This is a very unfortunate case where the Government of Puducherry had extracted work from its employee and thereafter had left him high and dry to eke out livelihood post retirement with only a begging bowl in his hands. The Government of Puducherry has the audacity to even claim that they are not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner herein.
15. In State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
“ 1. [the] pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment [to the employees].”
16. The facts in the instant case shall now be examined. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
17. The petitioner Dr.D.Adiroubane, originally joined service as Agricultural Instructor on ad-hoc basis in Farmers Training Programme, Deparment of Agriculture, Government of Puducherry on 19.11.1973. He served the Government from that date till 01.09.2012 for over 38 years. Instead of giving him a warm farewell, the respondents have given him a death knell to beat. They have practically suffocated him economically and financially by denying him all benefits payable on his retirement. He had not faced any disciplinary proceedings. He had not absented himself from duty. But still he was treated as a persona non grata on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation.
18. The petitioner served in the Agricultural Department, Government of Puducherry from 19.11.1973 till 04.11.1990 for a period of 16 years, 11 months and 18 days. In the year 1987, the third respondent was floated and an Agriculture College was established at Karaikal. The petitioner was deputed to the third respondent namely, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture & Research Institute PAJANCOA & RI as Assistant Professor and by order dated 20.03.1994, he was also absorbed into regular service. The 4th respondent namely the Dean PAJANCOA & RI had issued an internal communication dated 20.03.1994 bearing No.Dean/PAJANCOA/Absorption/94, whereby the petitioner was informed that he has:
http://www.judis.nic.in 11 “been provisionally absorbed/regularised as Assistant Professor at PAJANCOA, Karaikal in the scale of Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 with the existing pay protection, subject to verification of your service records provided by the parent department concerned.
For the present absorption/regularisation, the service rendered at PAJANCOA heitherto is taken into consideration as per rules.
The previous services rendered by you at the parent department will be considered only for retirement benefits.”
19. It is thus seen that there was a specific commitment that the service rendered by petitioner in the Agricultural Department will be considered for determining the retirement benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner was given an option to either receive monthly pension or to receive lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension with respect to his service in the Agricultural Department. By letter dated 01.11.2001, the petitioner addressed the Director of Agriculture, the 7th respondent and stated as follows:
“With reference to the above, I hereby exercise my option to sub clause(ii) of clause(1) and the amount accrued on my account may be transferred to the Dean, PAJANCOA & RI to remit in the pension fund of Dr.D.Adiroubane, Associate Professor (Ag.Ento.)” http://www.judis.nic.in 12
20. The 7th respondent did not transfer any amount but, on the other hand in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it had been stated as follows:
“But no action was initiated by Dr.D.Adiroubane to receive the lump sum amount from Agriculture Department Puducherry so far.” This Court is not able to understand what exactly the 4 th respondent or the 7th respondent wanted to convey by the above. The responsibility was on them to pay the petitioner the lump sum amount and remit the amount in his pension account. They did not do so. They have no intention of doing so.
21. In the very same counter, the 4th respondent had admitted as follows:
“a separate GPF scheme was implemented in PAJANCOA & RI, Karaikal under PAJANCOA & RI – GPF rules. Dr.D.Adiroubane has contributed to the erstwhile GPF scheme operated in PAJANCOA & RI and also contributed to the GPF scheme in the parent department prior to his absorption as Assistant Professor and he was covered under old pension scheme since 1973.” http://www.judis.nic.in 13
22. It is thus seen that the petitioner had contributed to his General Provident Fund. This amount has also been surreptitiously with held by the respondents. The Under Secretary to Government (Agriculture and Forest Department) namely the 6th respondent stated as follows by letter dated 14.02.2012 with respect to extending pension benefits to the petitioner.
“I am directed to refer to your letter cited on the captioned subject and to inform that your request has been carefully examined. As the Writ Petition No.13571 of 2011 is sub-judice at the Hon'ble Madras High Court, Chennai, your grievance regarding extension of pension benefits is kept pending till the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble Court.”
23. The writ petition in No.13571 of 2011 had been filed by the Non- Teaching Employees Association of PAJANCOA & RI. The petitioner was not a Non-Teaching Staff. The pending of the writ petition has been used as a shield unlawfully by the 6th respondent and I have no hesitation in rejecting this stand of the respondents. The petitioner stands on a different footing. He had been absorbed in service. He worked for more than 16 years and thereafter for a further period of 11 years and more. He had contributed to the GPF scheme. It is that amount which he seeks to now recover. He had also exercised his option to receive lump sum amount in lieu of monthly pension from his parent department. Even that amount had not been paid to him. This letter dated 14.02.2012 which is one of the orders impugned is quashed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
24. Thereafter, the Dean PAJANCOA & RI, the 4th respondent had addressed a letter dated 28.05.2012 in No.6766/PJN/Estt./E1/2012-13 stating as follows:
“with reference to the applications cited above (1) and on approval of the Chief Secretariat(Agriculture), Puducherry vide Note cited above(2), it is informed that since Dr.D.Adiroubane, Professor(Entolomogy), has fully been absorbed in PAJANCOA & RI, Karaikal and there is No Pension Scheme in PAJANCOA & RI, Karaikal, the Government of Puducherry cannot pay pension to him.”
25. The 4th respondent had not answered the fundamental issue that the petitioner had as stated in the counter affidavit as follows:
“a separate GPF scheme was implemented in PAJANCOA & RI, Karaikal under PAJANCOA & RI – GPF rules. Dr.D.Adiroubane has contributed to the erstwhile GPF scheme operated in PAJANCOA & RI and also contributed to the GPF scheme in the parent department prior to his absorption as Assistant Professor and he was covered under old pension scheme since 1973.” .
It is therefore clear that the 4th respondent had, only with malafide intention written the above letter dated 28.05.2012. It had not been stated as to what happened to the lump sum amount which was payable to the petitioner for http://www.judis.nic.in 15 his service in the Agricultural Department. This letter which is also impugned in the writ petition is also quashed.
26. With respect to the death cum retirement gratuity, the 4th respondent again addressed a letter dated 13.09.2012 in No.3478/PNJ/E1/DA/2012, wherein he had stated as follows:
“with reference to the letter cited above, it is informed that the benefit of Death cum Retirement Gratuity is not yet extended to this society, by the Government. Your request for the benefit will be considered as and when the benefit extended to this society.” I hold that the said statement is a fraud played by the 4th respondent on the petitioner. Any employee who had served as permanent employee is entitled for Death cum Retirement Gratuity. The 4th respondent cannot simply wash away their hands by placing the blame on the Government.
27. In the case of D.V.Kapoor Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 314, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Assistant Grade-IV of the Indian foreign Service who did not join duty as commended resulting in initiation of disciplinary proceedings and who sought voluntary retirement which was granted but, he was to be on notice that disciplinary proceedings will be continued, and were the President had withheld http://www.judis.nic.in 16 grant of pensionary benefits. It was also held as follows:
“9. As seen the exercise of the power by the President is hedged with a condition precedent that a finding should be recorded either in departmental enquiry or judicial proceedings that the pensioner committed grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of his duty while in office, subject of the charge. In the absence of such a finding the President is without authority of law to impose penalty of withholding pension as a measure of punishment either in whole or in part permanently or for a specified period, or to order recovery of the pecuniary loss in whole or in part form the pension of the employee, subject to minimum of Rs.60.
10. Rule 9 of the Rules empowers the President only to withhold or withdraw pension permanently or for a specified period in whole or in part or to order recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the State in whole or in part subject to minimum. The employee's right to pension is a statutory right. The measure of deprivation therefore, must be correlative to or commensurate with the gravity of the grave misconduct or irregularity as it offends the right to assistance at the evening of his life as assured under Article 41 of the Constitution. The impugned order discloses that the President withheld on permanent basis the payment of gratuity in addition to pension.
The right to gratuity is also a statutory right. The appellant was not charged with nor was given an http://www.judis.nic.in 17 opportunity that his gratuity would be withheld as a measure of punishment. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which, the President is empowered to withhold gratuity as well, after his retirement as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the order to withhold the gratuity as a measure of penalty is obviously illegal and is devoid of jurisdiction.” In the present case, the petitioner was not even charged with any offence. He worked continuously without any blemish. In an extreme case cited above, the Honourable Supreme Court had directed that withholding of gratuity is illegal and devoid of jurisdiction. In the present case I hold that withholding gratuity is malafide and a fraudulent act committed by the respondents.
This letter dated 13.09.2012 which is also impugned is also quashed.
28. With respect to the Earned Leave Encashment, by office order dated 29.10.2012 in No.PJN/Estt.1/DA/Leave Salary/2012, it was stated as follows:
“Dr.D.Adirubane, Professor is a regular employee of PAJANCOA & RI, Karaikal, and admitted into retirement w.e.f.31.08.2012. He has 102 days of Earned Leave and 322 days of Half Pay leave at his credit.
2. The encashment of Earned Leave and Half pay leave is eligible to him as per the CCS(leave Rules) 1972. Whereas the Earned Leave encashment eligible to Dr.D.Adiroubane, is arrived at Rs.3,37,525/- as detailed below:-
Total No.of days eligible for Earned Leave encashment - 300 days Earned Leave encashed from the previous employer http://www.judis.nic.in 18 (i.e from Agri.Dept.,KKL at the time of his absorption In PAJANCOA) - 186 days Balance of Earned Leave to be encashed - 114 days Earned leave at his credit on the date of superannuation - 102 days Encashment of Earned Leave for 102 days - Rs.44510+10000+39247*102 30 =Rs.3,18,773.8 or 3,18,774/-
Encashment of Half Pay Leave for 12 days - Rs.44510+10000+39247/2*102 30 =Rs.18,751.4 or 18,751/-
Total amount eligible for Encashment = Rs.3,18,774+18,751=3,37,525/-
Further it is informed that the overpayment of Salary made consequent on the Audit remarks regarding promotion to the post of Professor is approximately worked out to Rs.3,47,263/- and necessary approval of the Chairman has also been obtained for with holding the payment of Earned Leave encashment up to the outcome of the Judgment. On receipt of the Judgment, Earned Leave encashment payable will be settled.”
29. In this connection the petitioner had sent representation dated 14.09.2012, 21.09.2012, 25.09.2012 and 17.10.2012 seeking a copy of the audit remarks. The respondents had not even bothered to reply to those representations leave alone forwarding the audit remarks. This attitude of the respondents leads to only one conclusion that there were no audit remarks. In this connection the Department of Agriculture by ID note dated 22.03.2002, with specific reference to the petitioner, had recorded that the petitioner had opted for receipt of lump sum amount in lieu of pro-rata pension amount. This letter has been addressed by Deputy Director (Administration of the Department of http://www.judis.nic.in 19 Agriculture). The Additional Director of Agriculture, Karaikal was requested to process each case from the particulars available in the service books and which are maintained in the respondent office. It is thus seen that the service book of the petitioner was with the respondents. He had served as Professor. He had been promoted following due procedure. A mere statement without any material to substantiate the same cannot be countenanced by any Court, I hold that the letter dated 29.10.2012 is also to be quashed.
30. In the case of D.D.Tewari (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 894, the Honourable Supreme Court,after upholding the above dictum held in a case where retiral benefits were released pursuant to orders of the High Court, but where interest was not awarded for delayed payment, held as follows:
“6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006 and the order of the learned Single Judge after adverting to the relevant facts and the legal position has given a direction to the respondent employer to pay the erroneously withheld pensionary benefits and the gratuity amount to the legal representatives of the deceased employee without awarding interest for which the appellant is legally entitled, therefore, this Court has to exercise its appellate jurisdiction as there is a miscarriage of http://www.judis.nic.in 20 justice in denying the interest to be paid or payable by the employer from the date of the entitlement of the deceased employee till the date of payment as per the aforesaid legal principle laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to supra. We have to award interest at the rate of 9% per annum both on the amount of pension due and the gratuity amount which are to be paid by the respondent.
7. It is needless to mention that the respondents have erroneously withheld payment of gratuity amount for which the appellants herein are entitled in law for payment of penal amount on the delayed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to do that in the case in hand.
8. For the reasons stated above, we award interest at the rate of 9% on the delayed payment of pension and gratuity amount from the date of entitlement till the date of the actual payment. If this amount is not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the amount falls due to the deceased employee. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.” http://www.judis.nic.in 21
31. In light of the above facts, I hold that the respondents have deliberately, without any acceptable reason, withheld the Retirement benefits payable to the petitioner on his superannuation. It is seen that the 4th respondent had also not forwarded the DCRG proposal to the Government. This had been revealed in the reply under Right to Information Act received by the petitioner on 29.10.2012. I have no other option, but to allow the writ petition. The respondents are directed to disburse the dues to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from this date together with interest @ 12% per annum.
32. The Writ Petition is allowed, with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to the petitioner by the 9th respondent, the Secretary to Government who has an overall direct responsibility towards every public servant who serves the Puducherry Government to ensure that there is settlement and disbursement of pension and gratuity without any culpable delay. Unfortunately, the 9th respondent had failed to discharge that duty at least in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
22.11.2018 smv Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking http://www.judis.nic.in 22 To,
1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to Government (Agriculture), Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
3. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture (Karaikal), Society, Rep.by its Chairman cum Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry.
4. The Dean Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture & Research Institute, Serumavilangai, Nedungadu Post, Karaikal – 609 603.
5. The Director of Accounts and Treasuries Government of Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry
6. The Under Secretary to Government Agriculture Department Government of Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry.
7. The Director of Agriculture Government of Union Territory of Puducherry Puducherry.
8. The Secretary to Government Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare, New Delhi.
9. The Secretary to Government Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Union Territory of Puducherry, Puducherry.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J., smv Pre-delivery order made in W.P.No.33325 of 2012 22.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in