Madras High Court
G. Santhanam vs Union Of India Rptd. By on 1 August, 2014
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri, M.M. Sundresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 01-08-2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.P.No.20509 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 G. Santhanam ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Union of India rptd. By The Senior Supdt. of Post Office Puducherry 2. Post Master General Chennai City Region Chennai 3. V. Santhanaraman Senior Superintendent of Post Office Vellore Division, Vellore 4. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondnet in respect of the order in O.A.No.907 of 2012 dated 07-08-2013 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 18% as prayed for till the date of payment of the amount as prayed for and to pass orders. For petitioner :: Mr. V. Ajaykumar For respondent :: Mr. K. Mohanamurali for R1 ORDER
The petitioner herein filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction against the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,33,445/- (Rupees Three lakhs thirty three thousand four hundred and forty five only) towards interest at the rate of 12% per annum in relation to the terminal benefits. While the request of the petitioner towards the payment of gratuity amount was granted, the other requests were rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the belated payment was made only because of the respondents who initiated the action, which was thereafter, dropped. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the writ petition will have to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
3. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. The question as to who was responsible for the delay, being a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in this proceedings. It is the specific case of the respondents that it is the petitioner, who is responsible for the delay. Furthermore, as rightly submitted by the respondents, there is no provision which enables the petitioner to get the interest for belated payment. The Tribunal has also considered the matter on merits and has granted partial benefits.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
(S.K.A.,J.)(M.M.S.,J.) 01-08-2014 glp To
1. The Senior Supdt. of Post Office Puducherry
2. Post Master General Chennai City Region Chennai
3. V. Santhanaraman Senior Superintendent of Post Office Vellore Division, Vellore
4. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.
and M.M. SUNDRESH,J.
glp W.P.No.20509 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 01-08-2014