Kerala High Court
Meenakshi.K vs Cherthala Municipality on 20 August, 2010
Bench: J.Chelameswar, P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1115 of 2010()
1. MEENAKSHI.K, (RETD. SANITATION WORKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.A. No. 1115 OF 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ravindran, J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36211 of 2009. She retired from service on 30.11.2008 while working as Sanitation Worker in the Cherthala Municipality. The writ petition was filed aggrieved by the delay in the disbursement of Death cum Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter referred to as 'the DCRG' for short) and also arrears of dearness allowance from the year 2002 onwards. By the judgment under challenge, the learned single Judge directed payment of terminal benefits within six months with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment. This writ appeal is filed claiming interest on the unpaid terminal benefits from the date of retirement.
2. The fact that the appellant retired from service on 30.11.2008 while working as Sanitation Worker in the Cherthala Municipality is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that though she is being paid monthly pension, DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance from the year 2002 have not been disbursed to her. In the writ petition, the petitioner claimed the said benefit. She also WA No.1115/2010 2 prayed for payment of commuted value of pension. The respondents justified the delay in disbursement of DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance citing financial constraints as the reason. Taking note of the said submission, the learned single Judge, directed disbursement of the terminal benefits within six months, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the judgment.
3. When the writ appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 16.7.2010, after hearing both sides, we passed an interim order directing payment of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant towards part payment of the terminal benefits due to her, on or before 31.7.2010. It is conceded before us that the said amount was disbursed to the appellant on 28.7.2010. When the writ appeal came up for further hearing on 3.8.2010, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Cherthala Municipality submitted that the amount payable to the appellant by way of arrears of dearness allowance was Rs.75,000/- and that including the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,96,366/- was payable to the appellant as on 28.7.2010. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that DCRG and arrears of dearness allowance were not disbursed on account of WA No.1115/2010 3 paucity of funds. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also submitted that though the appellant has applied for payment of commuted value of pension, till date a decision on the application has not been taken.
4. The Apex Court has in Padmanabhan Nair v. State of Kerala (AIR 1985 SC 356) held that the retirement benefits should be paid to employees at least within two months from the date of retirement and that if there is delay, interest at the market rate should be paid on the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. In Dua v. State of Hariyana (2008 (3) KLT 58), the Apex Court has held that where payment of terminal benefits is delayed, the employee is entitled to be compensated by award of interest. The fact that DCRG has not so far been paid to the appellant is not in dispute. The appellant retired from service on 31.8.2008, nearly two years back. The appellant was a Sanitation Worker, a low paid employee of the Municipality. It is also not in dispute that she was denied payment of the sum of Rs.75,000/- representing arrears of dearness allowance due to her from the year 2002 onwards. For no fault of hers and for no justifiable reason, payment of DCRG was WA No.1115/2010 4 denied to her. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be compensated by award of interest on the amount of DCRG at the rate of 6% per annum from 1.2.2009. Under the pension rules, the appellant is also entitled to commuted value of pension. In such circumstances, we are also of the opinion that the respondents should take an expeditious decision on the appellant's application for payment of commuted value of pension. We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with the following directions:
(i) The sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the first respondent to the appellant on 28.7.2010 pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 16.7.2010, shall be adjusted towards the arrears of dearness allowance payable to her.
(ii) The balance amount of Rs.25,000/- paid on 28.7.2010 shall be treated as having been disbursed towards part payment of the DCRG. The balance amount of DCRG due to the appellant shall be disbursed within three months from today, together with simple interest at 6% per annum from 1.2.2009 till the date of payment. The payment of Rs.25,000/- effected on 28.7.2010 shall also be given credit to, while computing the interest payable on the amount of WA No.1115/2010 5 DCRG.
(iii) The respondents shall also consider the application submitted by the appellant for payment of commuted value of pension and take steps to pay the commuted value of pension to the appellant within three months from today.
J.CHELAMESWAR, (CHIEF JUSTICE) P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WA No.1115/2010 6 WA No.1115/2010 7