Madras High Court
M.Suceela Bai vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 20 September, 2019
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20.09.2019
C O R A M:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNA KUMAR
Writ Appeal No.3162 of 2019
M.Suceela Bai ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue Administration, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri District.
3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E),
Chennai-600 018. ... Respondent
Prayer Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 27.11.2017, passed in W.P.No.6007 of 2017.
For appellant ... Mr.A.Amal Raj
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For respondents ... Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Manikumar,J) Challenging the order, dated 27.11.2017, passed in W.P.No.6007 of 2017, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal.
2. Case of the appellant, before the writ Court, is that she entered the Office of the respondents, as Typist in the year 1976, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and gradually, promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and then as Tahsildar. After serving as PA to Sub-Collector, Dharmapuri District, which is a post equivalent to the cadre of Tahsildar, she was posted as Tahsildar at Harur Taluk on 05.09.2011 and then, transferred to the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 15.03.2012, where she attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. She was also permitted to retire from service, without prejudice to the disciplinary action initiated against her. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3. Before the writ Court, it is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that though she was permitted to retire from service on 30.04.2013, without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against her, she was not given full pension and was allowed to get only provisional pension, even though the respondents have not come forward to issue any charge-memo, till the date of filing of the writ petition, which has put to great hardship to her. After the lapse of four years from the date of attaining age of the superannuation on 30.04.2013, the respondents cannot issue any charge-memo, under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.
4. Hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.6007 of 2017, for a mandamus, directing the Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Administration, Secretariat, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, to fix her last drawn pay-scale in the cadre of 'Tahsildar' and accordingly, calculate 'Gratuity', 'Commutation' etc and get the approval from the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, 3rd respondent herein and disburse her retiral pensional benefits in full, together with simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on the outstanding dues, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 for the delayed disbursement from 01.05.2013 upto date of payment in full, and continue to disburse full pension.
5. Counter affidavits filed by respondents 2 & 4 before the writ Court, show that it is not possible to proceed with the departmental action against the appellant, even under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, as four years have lapsed from the date of the alleged incident. Writ Court has considered Paragraph 9 of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent herein, which states that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, necessary charge-sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Dharmapuri in Cr.NO.223/2012, under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, against two private persons and two retired government servants viz., 1) D.S.Irfan S/o.Sye Salib Beeran, 2) P.Manvannan, S/o.Perumal, Village Administrative Officer, K.Ndhuhali, 3) M.Chinasamy S/o.Matha Gounder, Pennagaram (Formerly dealing Assistnat of the Taluk Office, Dharmapuri) and 4) K.Thamilarasan S/o.D.C.Krishnan, Kottail Kovil Street, Dharmapuri. Although the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, 3rd respondent herein, in his letter in Roc.No.Ser.3(3)/35619/2014, dated http://www.judis.nic.in 5 21.03.2017, has requested the District Collector, Dharmapuri, 2nd respondent herein, to analyze the possibility of taking criminal action against the appellant, since it was not possible to proceed with departmental disciplinary action under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, no action was taken and admittedly, no charge-memo has also been issued to the appellant, either at the time of her retirement or immediately thereafter.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Writ Court, vide, order, dated 27.11.2017, allowed the writ petition, as hereunder:
"6.Although the alleged occurrence took place as early as on 26.09.2007 for transfer of land patta in the name of Thiru.Irban in respect of Dry Lands in Survey No.153/1, 153/2, 154/1 and Surve No.154/2 of K.Naduhalli Village and this was noticed in the year 2011 itself, the respondents have not taken action against the petitioner till she reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. Moreover, she was also permitted to retire from service by the 2nd respondent vide his order in Roc.No.3664/2012/A1, dated 30.04.2013. Now, as four years have gone by from the date of the incident, the respondents cannot even proceed with http://www.judis.nic.in 6 the departmental action under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which reads as follows_ "The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government service was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment,-
(i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(ii)shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and
(iii)shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."
In the meanwhile, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the respondents themselves have come forward to consider the payment of DCRG as per Section 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
7.Hence, considering the fact that as four years have lapsed from the date of the incident, the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to pay full pension and other consequential benefits to the petitioner, by fixing her last drawn pay-scale in the cadre of Tahsildar, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Insofar as payment of interest for the belated disbursement of the terminal benefits, a learned single Judge declined to direct the respondents to pay interest on the belated disbursement of the terminal benefits, in view of the adverse records against the appellant.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellants have come forward with the instant writ appeal, on the grounds, inter alia, "(i) The Learned Judge ought not to have denied interest for the non-disbursement of Gratuity, Commutation including Pension holding that, ‘belated disbursement’, ‘adverse records’ etc in as much as the payments have not been disbursed on the date of the order and as on date of this Appeal. The Learned Judge ought to have further seen that right to receive pension is a right to property as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in 1971 (2) SCC 330.
(ii) The Learned Judge ought to have considered the conceding statement by the Respondents that, “It is not possible to proceed departmental disciplinary action under Rule-9(2)(b) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules as 4 years have been lapsed from the date of occurrence”. Here is a case where the Respondents ought not to have denied the benefits for the vexatious allegation of the year 2007 when the Appellant retired from service on superannuation on http://www.judis.nic.in 8 30.04.2013 as 4 years limitation period was not available to the Respondents. Having vexatiously resisted the benefits entitled to by the Appellant observing, “without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated” by taking into consideration of the alleged occurrence of the year 2007 despite the fact that there is no link in any manner whatsoever to the Appellant, the present admission by way of counter exposed the callous indifference on the part of the Respondents. The Learned Judge having allowed the claim as claimed by the Appellant indicting the indifferent attitude of the Respondents, the denial of interest as entitled to by the Appellant within the meaning of Section- 7(3) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 39/1972 amounts to depriving of the Appellant’s legitimate right without any authority of Law."
We have heard Mr.A.Amal Raj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmuga Sundaram, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
8. Let us consider few cases on the belated payment of pension and retirement benefits.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
(i) In State of Kerala and others vs. V.Padmanabhan Nair reported in (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429, it was held that prompt payment of retirement benefits is the duty of the Government and any failure in that direction will entail the Government liable to pay penal interest to the government servant. It was further held that gratuity should be paid on the date of retirement or on the following day and pension should be paid at the expiry of the following month. In that case, the Supreme Court, finding that there was delay in disbursement of the terminal benefits, directed the respondents therein to disburse the pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(ii) In Dr.Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "....grant of pension is not a bounty but a right of the government servant. The Government is obliged to follow the Rules mentioned in the earlier part of this order in letter and in spirit. Delay in settlement of retiral benefits is frustrating and must be avoided at all costs. Such delays are occurring even in regard to family pensions for which too there is a prescribed procedure. This is indeed unfortunate. In cases where a retired government servant claims interest http://www.judis.nic.in 10 for delayed payment, the Court can certainly keep in mind the time-schedule prescribed in the Rules/Instructions apart from other relevant factors applicable to each case."
(iii) In Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686, the appellant therein retired from service on 31st August, 1997. The retiral benefits, such as, GPF, GIS, Encashment of Leave, Arrears of pay, Gratuity and Commuted value of Pension, were paid long after she retired. Observing that in case of an employee, retiring after having rendered service, it is expected that all the payments of the retiral benefits should be paid, on the date of retirement or soon thereafter, if for some unforeseen circumstances, the payments could not be made on the date of retirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the respondent therein to pay to the retired employee, interest at the rate of 18% on the belated payment from the date of retirement, till the actual payment was made.
(iv) In Gorakhpur University v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra reported in 2001 (6) SCC 591, the retiral benefits of the respondent therein were withhold to adjust certain disputed amounts from a http://www.judis.nic.in 11 Professor for overstaying in the University, during his appointment as Vice-Chancellor in another University. After completion of his tenure as Vice Chancellor, he assumed his original post, ie., as Professor in the University, in which, he had worked earlier and continued to service till 11.1.90, the date, on which he attained the age of superannuation. During his overstay, nominal rent was accepted from him and no legal action was taken to recover possession of the quarters. No notice was issued, fixing his liability for payment of penal rent. When disbursement of retiral benefits, including fixation and disbursment of pension, was delayed, a writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court and that the same was opposed by Gorakhpur University, the appellant before the Apex Court. It was the contention of the appellant that the professor had not vacated the quarters held by him, when he retired and within the permissible extended period and therefore, he was liable for payment of penal rent in respect of such accommodation and as a matter of fact, the Finance Controller, Officer of Directorate of Higher Education, U.P., who examined his pension papers, ordered on the recommendation of the university-authorities, adjustment of Rs.3,20,638.04 from the amounts due, towards the retiral benefits. http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Applying the principles of Some Prakash v. Union of India reported in 1981 (I) LLJ 79 (SC) and R.Kapur v. Director of Inspector (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and Another reported in (1995) I LLJ 884 (SC), the High Court overruled the objections of the University, holding that the pension and other retiral benefits cannot be withheld or adjusted or appropriated for the satisfaction of any other dues outstanding against the retired employee. It was further held that the action of the university authorities was illegal and while allowing the claim of the first respondent-Professor, a direction was also issued to pay the entire pension and Provident Fund etc., due to him, with penal interest @ 18% within two months from the date of the order. While testing the correctness of the order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 5, held as follows:
"5. We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties before us. The earlier decision pertaining to this very university reported in S.N.Mathur is that of a Division Bench rendered after considering the principles laid down and also placing reliance upon the decisions of this R.Kapur which, in turn, relied upon earlier decisions in State of Kerala v. M.Padmanabhan Nari and Som Prakash. This court has been repeatedly http://www.judis.nic.in 13 emphasizing the position that pension and gratuity are no longer matters of any bounty to be distributed by Government but are valuable rights acquired and property in their hands and any delay in settlement and disbursement whereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severely by imposing penalty in the form of payment of interest. Withholding of quarters allotted, while in service, even after retirement without vacating the same has been viewed to be not a valid ground to withhold the disbursement of the terminal benefits. Such is the position with reference to amounts due towards Provident fund, which is rendered immune from attachment and deduction or adjustment as against any other dues from the employee. In the context of this, mere reliance on behalf of the appellant upon yet another decision of a different Division Bench of the very High Court rendered without taking note of any of the earlier decisions of this court but merely proceeding to decide the issue upon equitable considerations of balancing conflicting claims of respective parties before it does not improve the case of the appellant any further. Reliance placed for the appellant university on the decision reported in Wazir Chand does not also sound well on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not clear from the facts relating to the said decision as to whether the person concerned was allowed to remain in occupation on receipt of the normal rent as in the http://www.judis.nic.in 14 present case. As noticed earlier, the case of the contesting respondent in this case is that the university authorities regularly accepted the rent at normal rates every month from the petitioner till the quarters was vacated and that in spite of request made for the allotment of the said quarters in favour of the son of the respondent, who is in the service of the university, no decision seems to have been taken and communicated though it is now claimed in the Court proceedings that he is not entitled to this type of accommodation. Further, the facts disclosed such as the resolutions of the university resolving to waive penal rent from all Teachers as well as that of the Executive Council dated 18.7.1994 and the actual such waiver made in the case of several others cannot be easily ignored. The lethargy shown by the authorities in not taking any action according to law to enforce their right to recover possession of the quarters from the respondents or fix liability or determine the so-called penal rent after giving prior show-cause notice or any opportunity to him before ever even proceeding to recover the same from the respondents renders the claims for penal rent not only a seriously disputed or contested claim but the university cannot be allowed to recover summarily the alleged dues according to its whims in a vindictive manner by adopting different and discriminatory standards. The facts disclosed also show that it is almost one http://www.judis.nic.in 15 year after the vacation of the quarter and that too on the basis of certain subsequent orders increasing the rates of penal rent, the applicability of which to the respondent itself was again seriously disputed and to some extent justifiably too, the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to recover by way of adjustment such disputed sums or claims against the pension, gratuity and provident fund amounts indisputably due and unquestionably payable to the respondent before us. The claims of the university cannot be said to be in respect of an admitted or conceded claim or sum due. Therefore, we are of the view that no infirmity or illegality could be said to be vitiated the order, under challenge in this appeal, to call for our interference, apart from the further reason that the disbursements have already been said to have been made in this case as per the decision of the High Court."
(v) In the decision reported in R.Lakshmikanthan v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 WLR 623, this Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue and following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are extracted hereunder, interest was ordered to be paid. At Paragraphs 8 and 9, this Court, held as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 16 "8. (a) The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1987) 4 SCC 328 (O.P.Gupta v. Union of India), in paragraph 15, after taking note of the 20 years of protracted departmental enquiry, held as follows, "... It is clear principle of natural justice that the delinquent officer when placed under suspension is entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable period of time.
If such a principle were not to be recognised, it would imply that the executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration." In the said case, the Supreme Court awarded 12% interest in favour of the appellant for the delayed payment of pension.
(b) In the decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 (Dr.Uma Agrawal v. State of U.P.), the Apex Court quantified the interest as Rs.1.00 lakh for the belated payment of retirement benefits.
(c) In (1985) 1 SCC 429 (State of Kerala v.
M.Padmanabhan Nair) also the Supreme Court endorsed the findings of the High Court in payment of interest for the belated settlement of retirement benefits. Further, in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Court observed thus, "We are also of the view that the State Government is being rightly saddled with a liability for the culpable neglect in the http://www.judis.nic.in 17 discharge of his duty by the District Treasury Officer who delayed the issuance of the L.P.C., but since the concerned officer had not been impleaded as a party defendant to the suit the Court is unable to hold him liable for the decretal amount. It will, however, be for the State Government to consider whether the erring official should or should not be directed to compensate the Government the loss sustained by it by his culpable lapses. Such action if taken would help generate in the officials of the State Government a sense of duty towards the Government under whom they serve as also a sense of accountability to members of the public."
9. In this case, petitioner's contentions in respect of the belated settlement of retirement benefits, are well founded. As observed earlier, the enquiry report having been filed as early as on 10.2.1992, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to delay the said proceedings for over ten years. Hence I hold that the petitioner is entitled to interest as claimed in the petition. ..........."
(vi) In S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44, the appellant therein was served with three charge sheets/show cause notices in June 1998, few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.06.1998 on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, http://www.judis.nic.in 18 gratuity, etc. They were withheld till the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the absence of any statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 14 of the judgment, held as follows:
"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice http://www.judis.nic.in 19 to the respondents."
(vii) In Govt., of T.N., v. M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1, the first respondent-employee therein was not permitted to retire, in view of the disciplinary proceedings, which was set aside in the year 1992, though he was due to retire on 31.01.1987, on attaining the age of superannuation. Earlier, the first respondent therein was dismissed from service and aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Madras, which was rejected on 06.11.1988. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Government on 22.12.1988. Pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, dated 17.02.1992, the Government, by its order in G.O. (2D) No.123, Revenue Department, dated 18.11.1992, set aside the order of dismissal and allowed the petitioner to retire from service. In the above reported judgment, though he had preferred the statutory appeal in the year 1998, the Government have taken nearly four years to pass orders on the appeal. Thereafter, the Government took further period of two years for disbursement of retiral benefits. It was the case of the Government before the Division Bench that insofar as belated payment of DCRG, recommendations were made for sanction of http://www.judis.nic.in 20 interest, but for other retiral benefits, including pension, commutation of pension, interest cannot be granted. Following the decisions of the Apex Court in Dr.Uma Agarwal v. State of U.P., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438 and S.K.Due v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44, the Division Bench of this Court held that, "7. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that an employee is entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines and he claim for interest, under Part III of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of t can make his he Constitution."
(viii) In W.P.No.582 of 2009, dated 30.09.2009 [P.V. Mahadevan v. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department], the petitioner therein was a retired Chief Engineer from Tamil Nadu Housing Board, who attained the age of superannuation. However, the benefit of encashment of leave, to which, he was entitled, as per G.O.Ms.No.488, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.08.1996, was not disbursed in time, inspite of repeated representations. Hence, he preferred a writ petition for a direction to sanction encashment of http://www.judis.nic.in 21 leave on private affairs due to him and disburse the arrears together with interest, at the rate of 18% on the belated payment of arrears. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering the decision in Vijay L. Mehrotra's case, has directed the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, to pay simple interest on the amount unpaid to the petitioner therein at 18% per annum from the date of attaining the age of superannuation, till the actual payment.
(ix) In P.Nagarathna Pandian v. M.D., TNHB, reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 577, the issue which came up for consideration before this Court was whether the Government servant is entitled to interest for belated payment of retirement benefits, after he was permitted to retire by dropping the charges. The reason stated by the respondents therein was that only due to the pendency of the charge against the petitioner therein, payment of terminal benefits was delayed. There was a delay of six years in disbursement of the retiral benefits. In the above reported case, when the petitioner therein was holding the post of General Manager (Technical) in Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation on deputation, a charge memo was issued on 18.11.1998, http://www.judis.nic.in 22 alleging that he had rejected a tender submitted by the Government of India, during the process of pre-qualification bid. The petitioner therein submitted his explanation to the same. Enquiry was conducted and that a report was also submitted, holding that the charge levelled against him as not proved. The Housing Board accepted the Enquiry Officer's report and passed a resolution on 27.11.2003 to drop the charge framed against him and also resolved to allow him to retire from service with effect from 30.11.1998. The Board resolution was sent to the Government for its approval. After nearly six years, the Government granted approval through G.O.(1D)No.164 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 14.4.2004. Thereafter, by proceedings, dated 25.5.2004, the Board passed final orders, allowing the petitioner to retire from service, with effect from 30.11.1998 and also ordered that the period of suspension would be treated as duty period. Subsequently, DCRG, Commutation of pension, Spl. Provident Fund, Provident Fund and Surrender of Earned Leave, were disbursed to the petitioner, even though the same were due from 30.11.1998, the date on which, he attained the superannuation. The request for sanction of interest for belated payment of Provident Fund was rejected and hence, the petitioner therein preferred a writ http://www.judis.nic.in 23 petition. The opposition of the respondent therein was that since the charge was dropped only on 25.05.2004, the petitioner's request for payment of interest for the belated retiral benefits, is not maintainable. After considering G.O.Ms.No.510, Finance Department, dated 27.06.1995 and the following decisions, viz., Vijay L. Mehrotra v. State of U.P., reported in 2000 (2) SLR 686, Gorakhpur University v. Dr.Shitla Prasad Nagendra reported in 2001 (6) SCC 591, Government of A.P., v. C.Purushotham reported in 2002 (7) SLR 760 (DB), H.Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., reported in 2003 (II) LLJ 1119, Union of India v. M.S.Abdulla reported in 2006 (6) SCC 455, R.Lakshmikanthan v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (III) LLJ 523, S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44 and Govt., of T.N., v. M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1, a learned Single Judge, at Paragraphs 11 and 12, held as follows:
"11. The reason stated by the respondents that only due to the pendency of the charge against the petitioner payment of terminal benefits was delayed, cannot be accepted as the charge, which was found not proved was ultimately dropped. The delay in completing the disciplinary proceeding has already caused mental agony to the petitioner after reaching the age of superannuation. The http://www.judis.nic.in 24 retirement benefits payable as on 30.11.1998 was delayed for about six years for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. It is not the case of the respondents that the disciplinary proceeding was delayed at the instance of the petitioner. From the perusal of the typed set of papers filed, it is evident that the enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charge was not proved. The said Enquiry Officer's report was submitted as early as on 31.8.1999. Even assuming that the pendency of the charge was not the reason for not paying the terminal benefits, there was unreasonable delay in dropping the charge, though the delay is explained in the counter affidavit. For no fault on the part of the petitioner, petitioner cannot be penalised by denying interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits.
12. In view of the above findings and decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to pay the statutory interest for the gratuity amount, provident fund, special provident fund. For commutation of pension and surrender of earned leave, the second respondent is bound to pay interest for the belated payment as per the Government Order referred above. The second respondent is directed to comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is http://www.judis.nic.in 25 closed."
(x) In D.D. Tewari (dead) through legal representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bulivitran Nigam Limited and others reported in 2014 (8) SCC 894, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 5 to 7, held as follows:
"5. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned. This aspect of the matter was adverted to in the judgment of the learned single Judge without assigning any reason for not awarding the interest as claimed by the appellant. That is why that portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge was aggrieved of by the appellant and he had filed L.P.A. before Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has passed a cryptic order which is impugned in this appeal. It has adverted to the fact that there is no order passed by the learned single Judge with regard to the payment of interest and the appellant has not raised any plea which was rejected by him, therefore, the Division Bench did not find fault with the judgment of the learned single Judge in the appeal and the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The correctness of the order is under challenge in this appeal before this Court urging various legal grounds.
6. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant retired http://www.judis.nic.in 26 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 employer-respondent 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 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."
(xi) In Dr.M.R.Mohan, M.S. v. The Secretary to the Government http://www.judis.nic.in 27 of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in 2017 (2) WLR 392, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, at Paragraphs 13, 14, 18 and 19 held as follows:
"13. Then the question with regard to contribution to be made for the period of five years was examined by the Office of the Accountant General. As per Rule 115(a) of the Fundamental Rules, while a Government servant is in foreign service, contribution towards the cost of his pension must be paid to consolidated fund on his behalf, while Clause (b) thereof sets out that if the foreign service is in India, contribution must be paid on account of the cost of the leave salary also and Clause (c) sets out that contributions due under Clause (a) and (b) above were required to be paid by the Government servant himself unless the foreign employer consents to pay the same. Rule 116 of the Fundamental Rules prescribes the rate of contributions payable on account of pension and leave salary and furnishes the data in a tabulated form. The data has worked out separate percentages for Group 'A', Group 'B', Group 'C' and Group 'D' Officers. For Group 'A' Officers, for a period of four to five years, 9% has been prescribed as the rate of contribution in Rule 116 of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, in effect, the writ petitioner/ appellant before us, could have calculated, on his own, the contributions payable by him for the period http://www.judis.nic.in 28 of five years, for the period he was absent from the service of the State, but he has not made any such contributions on his own. The contributions were admittedly paid by him, as was noticed by the learned Single Judge, only on 22.09.1998 and that was the reason why the learned Single Judge ordered for payment of interest on delayed pension for the period beyond thereafter.
14. Though in principle, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, but however, we are left wondering as to why, for the delay that was caused in forwarding the pension papers by the Office of the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, one should not be awarded compensatory costs in the matter. While it may be true that the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms.No.517, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 12.06.1987 talk of payment of interest on delayed payment of Gratuity only and consequently, does not cover the event of any delayed payment of pension, but none-the-less, some amount ought to have been awarded as compensatory cost for the delay in setling the provisional pension, to begin with till July, 2000.
18. Payment of pension is no act of grace or bounty on the part of anyone. That is a right earned by the Government servant, in recogniziton of his past services. That is the reason why payment of pension to the Government servants http://www.judis.nic.in 29 has come to be recognized as a event of deferred payment for the quality of services rendered by such men. Afterall, the State Government promises certain services to its citizens and secures delivery of such services to the citizens by employing Government servants. Therefore, in recognition of such services rendered to the citizens, the State undertakes to pay monthly pension to such retired Government servants, also as a measure of social security. Any delay in setling such terminal benefits has to be viewed seriously.
19. The maximum period of six months is considered as a reasonable outer limit for sanction of pension and other terminal benefits. At any rate setling the pensionary benefits beyond a period of one year can never be appreciated and it must necessarily result in some kind of compensation. Since the State Government has taken a Policy decision to award interest on delayed settlement of Gratuity- which infact is in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 7(3-A) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1978- but at the same time, the State Government, as a Policy has not authorized any payment of interest on delayed pension. In the absence of any Policy decision on the part of the State Government, we are not denuded to come to the rescue of a hapless and helpless retired servant of the State. We can properly mould the relief and award compensatory cost which are capable of http://www.judis.nic.in 30 being recovered from the identified/ identifiable persons responsible for the malady. The Government servants are accountable forboth what they do and don't do."
9. In the case on hand, Tahsildar, Dharmapuri, in his report, dated 05.11.2011, has stated that while the appellant was serving as Deputy Tahsildar, during the year 2007, she only passed an order on 26.09.2007, to transfer the land patta in the name of one Thiru.Irfan in respect of Dry Lands in Survey No.153/1, 153/2, 154/1 and Survey No.154/2 of K.Naduhalli, by deleting the existing name of Thiru.Rizhwan and only on account of transfer of patta in the name of Thiru.Irfan, changes were carried out in the Village accounts by the Village Administrative Officer, K.Naduhalli Village of Dharmapuri Taluk. Whereas, no changes were carried out in the Taluk Account of the Taluk Office, Dharmapuri. However, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated, vide proceedings of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District. Translated version of the said order is extracted hereunder:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COLLECTOR OF DHARMAPURI DISTRICT http://www.judis.nic.in 31 PRESENT: Tmt.R.Lilly, I.A.S., Na.Ka.No.3664/2012/A1 Dated: 30.04.2013 Sub: Public Service - Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Services - Retirement of Tmt.M.Susilabai, Office Manager (General), Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 30.04.2013 A.N., on reaching superannuation - Orders issued permitting the individual to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings
- Reg.
Ref: Collector of Dharmapuri District Office file No. 26821/2011/P2.
-----
ORDER:
As the enquiry pertaining to the transfer of patta, is pending on the file cited in the reference against Tmt.M.Susilabai, working as Manager (General) in the cadre of Tahsildar, in the District Revenue Unit of Dharmapuri, Office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, orders are issued permitting the individual to retire from service due to her reaching superannuation on 30.04.2013 A.N., without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings contemplated.
Sd/-
District Collector, Dhamapuri.
10. Incident is alleged to have taken place on 26.09.2007.
http://www.judis.nic.in 32 Appellant reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. She was permitted to retire on 30.04.2013. Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, has been extracted supra. It is trite law that issuance of a charge memo is the commencement of the departmental proceedings. Useful reference can be made to few decisions,
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.C.O. Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor reported in 2007 (4) S.C.C. 474, the Honourable Apex Court has clearly held that the departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. It is useful to refer paragraphs 17 to 23 of the said judgment which is reproduced as follows:-
"17. The High Court, therefore, may not correct in arriving at its opinion. However, as would appear from the discussions made hereinafter, initiation of the departmental proceedings itself, in our considered opinion, was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.
18.The fact that charge-sheet was issued only on 13.11.98 was not in dispute. It also stands admitted that the respondent attained the age of superannuation on or before 1.11.1996. Disciplinary Proceedings admittedly were initiated against the respondent in terms of Regulation 20(3)(iii) of UCO Bank Officer Employees Services http://www.judis.nic.in 33 Regulations, 1979 which reads as under:
"The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are competed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to CPF."
...........
21. ........The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge sheet is issued (See Union of India v. K.V.Janakiraman (AIR 1991 S.C. 2010). This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this court recently in Coal India Ltd., v. Saroj Kumar Mishra (2007 (5) SCALE 724) wherein it was held that date of application of mind on the allegations levelled against an officer by the Competent Authority as a result whereof a charge sheet is issued would be the date on which the disciplinary proceedings said to have been initiated and not prior thereto.
(ii) In Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak reported in 2007 http://www.judis.nic.in 34 (6) SCALE 348, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued.
11. What is the effect of non-issuance of charge memo or in otherwords, commencement of departmental proceedings, within four years, as contemplated in Rule 9(2)(b), the respondents are quiet aware of the legal implication. Therefore, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, 3rd respondent herein, in his letter in Roc.No.Ser.3(3)/35619/2014, dated 21.03.2017, has requested the District Collector, Dharmapuri, 2nd respondent herein, to analyze the possibility of taking criminal action against the appellant, since it was not possible to proceed with the departmental disciplinary action under Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. If no disciplinary proceedings are initiated, as per the rules, then the appellant is entitled to pension and other retirement benefits, from the date on which she attained the superannuation, ie., on 30.04.2013.
12. Insofar as payment of interest on the belated payment of http://www.judis.nic.in 35 DCRG and other benefits is concerned, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.517, Fin. (P) Department, dated 12.06.1987, which reads as follows:-
III. Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity G.O.Ms.No.517. Fin.(P) Department, dated 12.06.1987 Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity-Revised rates of Interest on delayed payment Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity – Orders- issued.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read :
1.G.O.Ms.No.1475, Finance (Pension) dated 23.11.73.
2.From the Government of India, O.M.No.7/3/84 Pension Unit dated 28.7.84.
3.From the General Secretary Retired Officials Association, Madras Lr.No.RC.1/86, dt.7.2.87.
Order:-
In the G.O. first read above, Government have fixed the rate of interest paid on Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity remaining unpaid for more than months from the date of retirement at 8% per annum. The General Secretary, Retired Officials Association has requested the Government to raise the rate of interest to that applicable to General Provident Fund rate of interest from year to year.
2.The Government of India in its Office memorandum second cited fixed the rate of interest payable on belated http://www.judis.nic.in 36 payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity as follows:-
beyond 3 months and upto one year 7% per annum beyond one year 10% per annum The Government have carefully examined the question of revision of rate of interest for the delayed payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity and have decided to adopt the Government of India Orders referred to in Para 2 above. They accordingly direct that when payment of Death-Cum- Retirement Gratuity has been delayed, the rate of interest will be as follows:-
beyond 3 months and upto one year 7% per annum beyond one year 10% per annum The orders shall take effect from the date of this order.
The cases of these Government servants who retired died while in service before the date of this order would also be covered by this order if Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity has not been paid as on this date and there has been delay in the payment for which interest is payable in accordance with the existing orders. In such cases, the interest would be worked out at the presented in G.O.Ms.No.1475, Finance, dated 23-11-73 upto the date of this order and thereafter at the rates mentioned in Para 3 above.
6.Necessary amendment to Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 will be issued separately.
http://www.judis.nic.in 37 C.Ramachandran Commissioner & Secretary to Govt.
13. Amendments have been issued to the abovesaid G.O. as under:-
“Amendment to G.O.Ms.No.517. Fin.(P) Department, dated 12.06.1987
4. The following instructions are also issued for the guidance of the Departments in this regard:
(i) No interest shall be payable in cases where the delay in the payment or death cum Retirement Gratuity is due the institution of Departmental or judicial proceedings against the Government servant concerned unless a specific determination is made that Government servant is not guilty of the charges preferred against him in the proceedings.
(ii) The interest has to be paid for the period of delay in the Heads of Offices only and not otherwise.
(iii) The scheme is applicable to all cases of entitlement and not to be based on the cases for entitlement.
(iv) The scheme is applicable only to Government pensioners and not other category of pensioners.”
14. Subsequently, Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.122 Fin. (P) Department, dated 20.02.1995, revising the rate http://www.judis.nic.in 38 of interest on delayed payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity, which as under:-
G.O.Ms.No.122 Fin (P) Dept., Dated 20.02.1995 Sub : Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity – Revised rates of interest on delayed payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity – Orders issued.
Read: 1.G.O.Ms.No.517, Finance (Pension) dated 12.6.1987.
2.From the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare O.M.No.F7/1/93-P & W(F) dated 25.8.1994.
-------------
ORDER:-
In the G.O. first read above, orders have been issued fixing the rate of interest to be paid on the delayed payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity in respect of State Government employees based on the orders issued by the Government of India for their employees as follows:-
(i) Beyond 3 months and upto one year 7% per annum.
(ii) Beyond one year 10% per annum.
2)The Government of India in their O.M second read above, has issued order enhancing the existing rate of interest on delayed payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity to their employees at the rate applicable to General Provident Fund deposits i.e. 12% per annum (compounded http://www.judis.nic.in 39 annually).
3)The Government have carefully examined the question of revision of rate of interest for the delayed payment of Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity and have decided to adopt the Government of India orders referred to in para 2 above in respect of State Government employees.
They accordingly direct that when payment of Death-Cum- Retirement Gratuity has been delayed the rate of interest shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum (compounded annually).
4)The orders shall take effect from the date of this order.
5)The cases of those Government servants who retired/died while in service before the date of this order would also be covered by this order Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity has not been paid as on this date and them has been delay in the payment for which interest is payable in accordance with the existing orders.
In such cases, the interest would be worked out at the rate prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.517, Finance (Pension) dated 12.6.1987 upto the date preceding the date of this order and thereafter at the rates mentioned in this roder.
6.Necessary amendment of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 will be issued separately.
(By Order of the Governor) http://www.judis.nic.in 40 N.Narayanan Secretary to Government
15. Rule 45 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, deals with Death cum Retirement Gratuity. Rule 45-A deals with interest on delayed payment of gratuity, which is as follows:-
“45-A. Interest on delayed payment of gratuity – (1) Interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum shall be payable on the death cum retirement gratuity paid beyond (a) period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government Servant.
Provided that on and from the 12th June 1987, the rate of such interest shall be as follows:
(a) seven per cent per annum beyond a period of three months and upto one year; and
(b) ten per cent per annum beyond a period of one year.”
16. Writ Court, vide impugned order, dated 27.11.2017, has observed that though the alleged occurrence took place as early as on 26.09.2007 for transfer of land patta in the name of Thiru.Irfan in respect of Dry Lands in Survey No.153/1, 153/2, 154/1 and Surve No.154/2 of K.Naduhalli Village, the same came to the notice only in the http://www.judis.nic.in 41 year 2011 and that the respondents have not taken any action against the appellant/petitioner, untill she reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. Moreover, she was also permitted to retire from service by the 2nd respondent, vide order, dated 30.04.2013. As per Rule 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, no departmental action can be taken against the appellant/petitioner, after four years from the date of retirement and hence, the writ Court has rightly held that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to all terminal benefits, including DCRG, from the date of attaining superannuation, but with due respect, failed to consider, as to whether, the appellant is entitled to any interest on the belated payment of pension.
17. It is the contention of the appellant that the writ Court has failed to award any interest for the belated disbursement of the terminal benefits. Once the respondents are not in a position to proceed against the appellant, with the departmental proceedings, under Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, due to the lapse of time, in the light of the Government Orders extracted, they are liable to pay interest on the belated disbursement of DCRG and other benefits. This aspect has been http://www.judis.nic.in 42 considered by this Court in W.A.(MD)No.716 of 2015, dated 24.07.2015 [The Secretary, HR & CE Deprtment v. P.Sankaranarayanan], wherein, after considering the abovesaid Government Orders, ordered thus, "15.Having decided to disburse the Death cum Retirement Gratuity, it should not been delayed. Rule 45- A(1) would be applicable, in a case where the Government have decided to withhold the retiral benefits, on account of any revenue loss to the Government. Even in such cases, recovery could be made from pension. Such a situation does not arise in this case, as the department itself has submitted that there was no revenue loss. Dismissal from service on account of disciplinary proceedings would entail forfeiture of all benefits. But in the case on hand, the department itself has decided to disburse Death cum Retirement Gratuity, indicating that there will not be any order of dismissal from service, even if the disciplinary proceedings reaches finality. Even if the disciplinary proceedings goes adverse to the respondent, penalty can be made on pension.
16.Thus in the light of the judgment in Y.Raja's case (cited supra) and the decision of the department to disburse Death cum Retirement Gratuity, the same ought not to have been delayed and in such circumstances, G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 20.02.1995, would lend support to the case of the respondent."
http://www.judis.nic.in 43
18. Courts have to consider the constitutional rights of a government servant to pension, for their subsistence, for having rendered their services to the Government. The employer does not suffer due to delay, but the employee suffers, and continues to suffer, till the payment is made. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua's case and the decision of this Court in M.Deivasigamani's case, squarely apply to the facts on hand. Consistent is the view of this Court in W.A.No.1272 of 2017, dated 20.10.2017 and W.A.No.2859 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018.
19. It is well settled that pension is not a bounty, payable on the sweet will and the pleasure of the Government and to receive pension is a valuable right of a government servant. Useful reference can be made to few decisions,
(i) In Deokindandan Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 1971 (2) SCC 330, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right to get pension is "property" and by withholding the same, the petitioner's fundamental http://www.judis.nic.in 44 rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) are affected.
(ii) In Bharat Petroleum Management Staff Pensioners v. B.P.C. Ltd., reported in 1988 (3) SCC 32, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 5, held as follows:
"5. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the rupee has lost its value to a considerable extent. Pension is no longer considered as a bounty and it has been held to be property. In a welfare State as ours, rise in the pension of the retired pensonnel who are otherwise entitled to it is accepted by the State and the State has taken the liability."
(iii) In State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava reported in AIR 2013 SCW 4749, the short facts of the case are as follows:
"2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings? The High Court has answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent. Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this http://www.judis.nic.in 45 appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following:
The respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the appellant State.
Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002. The appellant sanctioned the release and payment of General Provident Fund on 25.5.2003. Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the Appellant sanctioned 90 http://www.judis.nic.in 46 percent provisional pension to the respondent. Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period (30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002) was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases/ departmental inquiry against him. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity.
4. Feeling aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non-release of the other aforesaid dues, the respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc. in terms of Resolution No.3014 dated 31.7.1980. The appellant, thereafter, considered the representation of the respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent filed Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the impugned orders dated 31.10.2007. The Division Bench has held that the question is squarely covered by the full Bench decision of that Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2007 (4) JCR 1. In the said full Bench Judgment dated 28.8.2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances http://www.judis.nic.in 47 of the subject matter, the High Court has held:
“To sum up the answer for the two questions are as follows:
(i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the Proceeding.
(ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law”.
5. Mr. Amarendra Sharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner accepted the fact that in so far as the Pension Rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding a part of pension or gratuity. He, however, submitted that there are administrative instructions which permit withholding of a part of pension and gratuity. His submission was that when the rules are silent on a particular aspect, gap can be filled by the administrative instructions which was well settled legal position, laid down way back in the year 1968 by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Sharma vs. Union of India 1968 (1) SCR http://www.judis.nic.in 48
111. He, thus, argued that the High Court has committed an error in holding that there was no power with the Government to withhold the part of pension or gratuity, pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings." The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a catena of decisions and at Paragraphs 7 to 16, ordered thus, "7. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:
“The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?
What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain http://www.judis.nic.in 49 date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratituous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors.[1971] Su. S.C.R. 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one’s discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Anr. V. Iqbal Singh (1976) IILLJ 377SC”.
8. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution http://www.judis.nic.in 50 of India.
9. Having explained the legal position, let us first discuss the rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is admittedly governed by Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under:
“43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement”. From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), following position emerges:-
(i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding.
http://www.judis.nic.in 51
(ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the department proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending.
(iii) The power of withholding leave encashment is not provided under this rule to the State irrespective of the result of the above proceedings.
(iv) This power can be invoked only when the proceedings are concluded finding guilty and not before.
10. There is also a Proviso to Rule 43(b), which provides that:-
“A. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment.
i. Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government.
ii Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings.
iii Shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made:-
B. Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment shall have been instated in http://www.judis.nic.in 52 accordance with sub clause (ii) of clause (a) and C. The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. It is apparent that the proviso speaks about the institution of proceedings. For initiating proceedings, Rule 43(b) puts some conditions, i.e, Department proceeding as indicated in Rule 43(b), if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty, then it shall not be instituted except:-
(a) With the sanction of the Government,-
(b) It shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceedings.
(c) Such proceedings shall be conducted by the enquiry officer in accordance with the proceedings by which dismissal of the services can be made.
Thus, in so far as the proviso is concerned that deals with condition for initiation of proceedings and the period of limitation within which such proceedings can be initiated.
11. Reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension etc. ONLY when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the rules for http://www.judis.nic.in 53 withholding of the pension/ gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending.
12. Right to receive pension was recognized as right to property by the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar; (1971) 2 SCC 330, as is apparent from the following discussion:
“29. The last question to be considered, is, whether the right to receive pension by a Government servant is property, so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This question falls to be decided in order to consider whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32. To this aspect, we have already adverted to earlier and we now proceed to consider the same.
30. According to the petitioner the right to receive pension is property and the respondents by an executive order dated June 12, 1968 have wrongfully withheld his pension. That order affects his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The respondents, as we have already indicated, do not dispute the right of the petitioner to get pension, but for the order passed on August 5, 1966. There is only a bald averment in the counter- affidavit that no question of any fundamental right arises for consideration. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents, was not prepared to take up the position http://www.judis.nic.in 54 that the right to receive pension cannot be considered to be property under any circumstances. According to him, in this case, no order has been passed by the State granting pension. We understood the learned counsel to urge that if the State had passed an order granting pension and later on resiles from that order, the latter order may be considered to affect the petitioner's right regarding property so as to attract Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.
31. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. By a reference to the material provisions in the Pension Rules, we have already indicated that the grant of pension does not depend upon an order being passed by the authorities to that effect.
It may be that for the purposes of quantifying the amount having regard to the period of service and other allied matters, it may be necessary for the authorities to pass an order to that effect, but the right to receive pension flows to an officer not because of the said order but by virtue of the Rules. The Rules, we have already pointed out, clearly recognise the right of persons like the petitioner to receive pension under the circumstances mentioned therein.
32. The question whether the pension granted to a public servant is property attracting Article 31(1) came up for consideration before the Punjab High Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Union of India A.I.R. 1962 Pun 503. It was held that http://www.judis.nic.in 55 such a right constitutes "property" and any interference will be a breach of Article 31(1) of the Constitution. It was further held that the State cannot by an executive order curtail or abolish altogether the right of the public servant to receive pension. This decision was given by a learned Single Judge. This decision was taken up in Letters Patent Appeal by the Union of India. The Letters Patent Bench in its decision in Union of India v. Bhagwant Singh I.L.R. 1965 Pun 1 approved the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Bench held that the pension granted to a public servant on his retirement is "property" within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution and he could be deprived of the same only by an authority of law and that pension does not cease to be property on the mere denial or cancellation of it. It was further held that the character of pension as "property" cannot possibly undergo such mutation at the whim of a particular person or authority.
33. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab I.L.R. 1967 P & H 278. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the http://www.judis.nic.in 56 Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding http://www.judis.nic.in 57 the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant.
34. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde and Anr. MANU/SC/0030/1968 : [1968]3SCR489 had to consider the question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property".
35. Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19(1)(f) and it is not saved by Sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) http://www.judis.nic.in 58 and 31(1)of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable. It may be that under the Pension Act (Act 23 of 1871) there is a bar against a civil court entertaining any suit relating to the matters mentioned therein. That does not stand in the way of a Writ of Mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law”.
13. In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651, this Court recognized that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court.
Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 59
14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under:
“300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.
15. It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different.
16. We, accordingly, find that there is no merit in the http://www.judis.nic.in 60 instant appeals as the impugned order of the High Court is without blemish. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- each."
(iv) In Rajeev Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2016 SCC Online HP 2137, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, held as follows:
"11. Deprivation of statutory claim is nothing but an infringement of a constitutional right. When the State deprives the citizens of their properties, it is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a Welfare State, the statutory authorities are bound to pay adequate compensation.
12. After observing that Article 300-A of the Constitution of India only limits the power of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law, the apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353, clarified that even after cessation of right of property as a fundamental right, acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with “law”.
13. The Court in Tukaram (supra) further observed that the right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right.
http://www.judis.nic.in 61 Though, it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are considered to be in the realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment.
14. Whether on the ground of laches and delay itself, such right can be defeated and petition thrown or not, more so after its admission, is an issue which requires consideration, in view of the stand taken by the respondent. The answer to the same, in my considered view lies in the Statute and Part-III of the Constitution itself. Such right cannot be negated purely on account of delay and laches for the following reasons. (i) Relationship inter se the parties is governed by the Statute/Subordinate Legislation in the shape of notification; (ii) The Government/its agent is under an obligation to pay the amount to the owner of the forest produce. This has to be in terms of the Statute/notification issued there under. Failure to comply with the statutory notifications, cannot come in the way of the rightful claimant, in having his produce sold at marketable rates. Significantly acquisition of forest produce is by force of law, leaving the owner no choice but to perforce sell it to the State Government/its agent; (iii) There is a corresponding obligation cast upon the State/its agent to pay the amount in terms of the Statute. This has to be so done with promptitude. Of its own, State is under an obligation to http://www.judis.nic.in 62 discharge its statutory obligations and make payments, more so in the absence of any disputed claim. In the year 1996 and 2004 itself, this Court had settled the issue of rights and obligation of the State. They ought to have come forward in releasing the payments with certain amount of speed and dispatch, rather than forcing the parties to litigate for adjudication of their claims; (iv) The matter attained finality with the dismissal of Civil Appeal on 2.12.2010 as also Review Petition by the Apex Court on 25.8.2011, whereafter petitioner promptly agitated the issue in terms of his communication dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-8).
.........
16. In Godavari Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 2 SCC 439, the apex Court culled out the following principles:
“(i) Normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not be entertained to enforce a civil liability arising out of a breach of a contract or a tort to pay an amount of money due to the claimants. The aggrieved party will have to agitate the question in a civil suit. But an order for payment of money may be made in a writ proceeding, in enforcement of statutory functions of the State or its officers, [vide Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 242].
(ii) If a right has been infringed-whether a http://www.judis.nic.in 63 fundamental right or a statutory right and - the aggrieved party comes to the court for enforcement of the right, it will not be giving complete relief if the court merely declares the existence of such right or the fact that existing right has been infringed. The High Court, while enforcing fundamental or statutory rights, has the power to give consequential relief by ordering payment of money realized by the government without the authority of law [vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006].
(iii) A petition for issue of writ of mandamus will not normally be entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money, to the return of which the Petitioner claims a right. The aggrieved party seeking refund has to approach the civil court for claiming the amount, though the High Courts have the power to pass appropriate orders in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 for payment of money, [vide Suganmal v. State of M.P., AIR 1965 SC 1740].
(iv) There is a distinction between cases where a claimant approaches the High Court seeking the relief of obtaining only refund and those where refund is sought as a consequential relief after striking down the order of assessment etc. While a petition praying for mere issue of a writ of mandamus to the state to refund the money alleged to have been illegally collected is not ordinarily http://www.judis.nic.in 64 maintainable, if the allegation is that the assessment was without a jurisdiction and the taxes collected was without authority of law and therefore the Respondents had no authority to retain the money collected without any authority of law, the High Court has the power to direct refund in a writ petition [vide Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, (1988) 1 SCC 401].
(v) It is one thing to say that the High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus for making refund of the money illegally collected. It is yet another thing to say that such power can be exercised sparingly depending on facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, where the facts are not in dispute, where the collection of money was without the authority of law and there was no case of undue enrichment, there is no good reason to deny a relief of refund to the citizens. But even in cases where collection of cess, levy or tax is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, refund is not an automatic consequence but may be refused on several grounds depending on facts and circumstances of a given case. [Vide U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 549].
(vi) Where the lis has a public law character, or involves a question arising out of public law functions on the part of the State or its authorities, access to justice by way http://www.judis.nic.in 65 of a public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. [Vide Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 242.] [Emphasis supplied]
17. On the question of delay, the Court in Tukaram (supra) observed as under:
“12. The State, especially a welfare State which is governed by the Rule of Law, cannot arrogate itself to a status beyond one that is provided by the Constitution. Our Constitution is an organic and flexible one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. There is another facet. The Court is required to exercise judicial discretion. The said discretion is dependent on facts and circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches is one of the facets to deny exercise of discretion. It is not an absolute impediment. There can be mitigating factors, continuity of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the Court should exercise the discretion more so, when no third party interest is involved. Thus analysed, the petition is not hit by the doctrine of delay and laches as the same is not a constitutional limitation, the cause of action is continuous and further the situation certainly shocks judicial conscience.
13. The question of condonation of delay is one of http://www.judis.nic.in 66 discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226, nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter, after the passage of a certain length of time. There may be a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion of the Court and such discretion, must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. The validity of the party's defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable. (Vide: P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., 1974 AIR (SC) 2271; State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, 1987 AIR (SC) 251; and Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 1 SCC 768;)
14. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying http://www.judis.nic.in 67 the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of a non-
deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have infact emerged, by delay on the part of the Petitioners. (Vide: Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, 1970 AIR (SC) 769; Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, 1987 AIR (SC) 1353; Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur, 1993 AIR (SC) 802; Dayal Singh v. Union of India, 2003 AIR (SC) 1140; and Shankara Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, 2011 AIR (SC) 2161)
15. In the case of H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR (SC) 866, this Court condoned a 30 year delay in approaching the court where it found violation of substantive legal rights of the applicant. In that case, the requisition of premises made by the State was assailed.”
(v) A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development and Ors. Vs. S.Venkatachalam and Ors. reported in (2019) 1 MLJ 1, has observed as follows:
http://www.judis.nic.in 68 "?12. It is well known that pension is not a bounty, but, is deferred wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and against deprecated the action of the Government in delaying release of pension. It is now settled that even if the pension rules do not provide for grant of interest, Writ Court is not powerless to grant interest on the delay in payment of pension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana & Others {MANU/SC/7048/2008 : 2008 (3) SCC 44}, has observed as under:-
"?14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant appears to be well founded that he would be entitled to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory rules occupying the filed, the appellant could claim payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are administrative instructions, guidelines, or norms prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that basis. But even in absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that retiral benefits are not in the nature of ?bounty? is, in our opinion, well founded and needs no authority in support thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not right in http://www.judis.nic.in 69 dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents."
13. It is to be noted that this judgment was passed, when the High Court refused to grant interest, on the belated payment of retiral benefits, on the ground that there was no provision in the Pension Rules, permitting grant of interest for belated pension. Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to this case.
14. In fact, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Chennai and another Vs. M.Deivasigamani {2009 (3) MLJ 1}, wherein one of us (Mr. Justice S.Manikumar), is a party, has granted interest, on delayed payment of pension.?"
20. Giving due consideration to the several grounds raised, we are of the view that right of a government servant, to receive pensionary and retirement benefits, at the earliest, should be given priority, vis-a-
vis, the interests of the government. Disbursement of both cannot be withheld, from the date of entitlement, causing prejudice to the rights of a government servant. In the light of the discussion and decisions, we hold that the appellant/petitioner is entitled to interest on the belated disbursement of pension and terminal benefits. The respondents are directed to pay interest for the same, within a period of eight weeks http://www.judis.nic.in 70 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order made in this appeal.
21. Writ Appeal is allowed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.K.,J) (D.K.K.,J) th 20 September 2019 Index: Yes Internet: yes To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Administration, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.
3.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.
4.The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Chennai-600 018.
http://www.judis.nic.in 71 S.MANIKUMAR,J AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD,J skm Writ Appeal No.3162 of 2019 20.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in