Madras High Court
R.Krishnamoorthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 October, 2010
Author: R.Banumathi
Bench: R.Banumathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI W.P.NO.22672 OF 2005 R.Krishnamoorthy .... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government Finance Department, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009. 2. The Pay & Accounts Officer (East) Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents to pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the terminal benefits of Rs.6,20,259/- for the period from 1.8.2004 to 9.11.2004 as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and further interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the interest amount claimed. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Premkumar For Respondents:Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, Addl.Govt.Pleader ORDER
The Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum for the terminal benefits of Rs.6,20,259/- for the period from 1.8.2004 to 9.11.2004 as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules and further interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the interest amount claimed.
2. The Petitioner has been working as Joint Director of Cooperative Audit in the Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank, Chennai 1 and retired on superannuation from the Government of Tamil Nadu service on the Afternoon of 31.7.2004. The 2nd Respondent/Pay & Accounts Officer issued authorisation for a sum of Rs.2,70,259/- through the communication letter PAO(E)/BAS-I/Unit-I/380/04 dated 27.09.2004 and subsequently payment of Rs.2,70,259/- was made to the Petitioner only on 9.11.2004. The Death cum Retirement Gratuity (in short, "DCRG") was authorised for payment by the Accountant General, Chennai, vide his AG (A&E) PEN/P2714/R-10-215/AR/2004-2005/2359 dated 17.08.2004 for Rs.3,50,000/-. According to the Petitioner, the authorised officer viz., Personal Assistant to the Director of Cooperative Audit, Chennai 5 did not present the bill immediately on 21.8.2004, the date on which it was received, but presented the bill of DCRG for Rs.3,50,000/- only on 10.9.2004, since the Last Pay Certificate had to be enclosed along with the bill, which was issued by the 2nd Respondent only on 10.9.2004 on the basis of authorisation issued by the Accountant General to the 2nd Respondent/Pay Disbursing Officer.
3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the amount towards DCRG (Rs.3,50,000/-) and encashment of leave salary was paid with a delay of 100 days i.e., more than three months after his retirement, which is in violation of Rule 45A of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules and therefore interest is payable for the delayed payment of terminal benefits. The Petitioner issued two notices dated 20.10.2004 and 5.11.2004 and issued final notice on 13.11.2004 to the 2nd Respondent claiming interest of Rs.11,824/- for the delayed payment of terminal benefits, for which, there was no response. Challenging the action of the respondents for the delayed payment of terminal benefits and refusal to pay the interest, the Petitioner has filed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Rule 45A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules provides for compulsory payment of interest from the date of retirement for delayed payment of DCRG beyond two months from the date of retirement at the rate of 8 percent. It was further submitted that the 2nd Respondent had acted negligently in the discharge of official duties in not settling the retirement benefits within the time fixed by law and thereby violated the mandatory provision of law and the 1st Respondent Government is also responsible for the negligence of the 2nd Respondent and therefore the Respondents are bound to pay interest for the belated payment of DCRG and encashment of leave salary.
5. Taking me through the averments in the counter affidavit, the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.Senthil Kumar submitted that before issuing the Last Pay Certificate to the Petitioner, 2nd Respondent has to thoroughly verify the pay drawn particulars and only after getting the correct particulars, Last Pay Certificate was issued and as such there was no delay. It was further submitted that the 2nd Respondent, being the authority to monitor the Government expenditure, has to be more vigilant and ensure that the Government money should not be paid in excess other than the actual expenditure and in as much as the 2nd Respondent has acted as per the rules in force, there is no violation of any statutory provisions laid down under the relevant rules.
6. The point falling for consideration is, whether the delay in disbursement of DCRG and encashment of leave salary was without any valid ground and unjustifiable.
7. Admittedly, the Petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2004. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it is seen that the certificate to the effect that 'no leave pending to be regularised' was received by the 2nd Respondent only on 10.8.2004. It was further stated that when the 2nd Respondent was processing the claim of the Petitioner it was learnt that the Government was about to issue order allowing house rent allowance and city compensatory allowance in full for the enactment of leave salary for the retiring officials and the orders to that effect was issued in G.O.Ms.No.324 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.8.2004 and the said order was officially received by the 2nd Respondent on 8.9.2004. Thereafter, the enactment of leave salary authorisation was processed as per the new Government Order. The Petitioner is said to have visited the 2nd Respondent office on 24.9.2004 and he agreed to receive the enactment of leave salary as per the new Government Order. There is no force in the contention of the Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent retained the leave encashment bill for a period of hundred days without any valid grounds. The 2nd Respondent has acted with bonafide intention to make payment of the entire amount to the Petitioner as per the new provision in G.O.Ms.No.324, Personal & Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.8.2004.
8. In so far as the contention of the Petitioner as to the delay in issuance of Last pay Certificate, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that at the time of preparing the Last pay Certificate, it was noticed that the Petitioner had drawn Computer Advance from the Government and therefore it has to be verified from the Government as to whether any pending dues are to be recovered from the retired official. The Petitioner was requested to furnish the recovery details and without raising any objection the Petitioner had also produced the recovery details. After getting the recovery particulars, the Last Pay Certificate was issued on 10.9.2004.
9. In so far as DCRG, authorisation of the Petitioner was received from the office of the Accountant General. When DCRG claim was being processed, by the letter AG(A&E)/VII/IR/268/2003-2004 dated 3.8.2004, the Accountant General informed the 2nd Respondent that the Petitioner's income-tax statement for the year 2002-2003 was not covered by the details of expenditure supported with vouchers and bills for Rs.40,000/- under Rule 80DDB of the Income-tax Act and therefore the Accountant General requested the 2nd Respondent to recover a sum of Rs.12,240/- from the Petitioner and to remit the same into the Government account. Therefore, the Petitioner was addressed by the 2nd Respondent to give an undertaking so as to deduct the Government dues from the DCRG payable to him. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it is seen that even though the Petitioner has initially accepted to give an undertaking, later he has not furnished the certificate to the 2nd Respondent. Instead he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.30447 of 2004 challenging the order of recovery and obtained interim stay on 19.10.2004. Thereafter DCRG was paid to the Petitioner on 5.11.2004.
10. Rule 45A of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules provides that interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum shall be payable on the DCRG paid beyond the period of two months from the date of retirement of a Government servant.
11. From the submissions of Additional Government Pleader and from the averments in the counter affidavit it is seen that the delay was only due to administrative exigency and the 2nd Respondent has taken steps for getting correct facts and the delay cannot be said to be wanton. As rightly contended by the Additional Government Pleader, the 2nd Respondent, being the authority to monitor the Government expenditure, the 2nd Respondent has to be more careful and ensure that the Government money is not paid in excess than the entitlement. The 2nd Respondent has acted as per the rules in vogue. Hence, the delay cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal to order payment of interest.
12. A writ of mandamus could be issued only when there is failure on the part of the statutory authority while discharging their statutory duties. While processing the DCRG and leave enactment authorisation, the 2nd Respondent was only ascertaining the correct facts before disbursing the amount and it cannot be said that the 2nd Respondent has failed to discharge the statutory duty/obligation cast upon it warranting issuance of writ of mandamus directing to pay interest.
13. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
05.10.2010 Index:Yes Internet:Yes usk R.BANUMATHI,J.
usk Copy to:
1. The Secretary to Government Finance Department State of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.
2. The Pay & Accounts Officer (East) Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.
ORDER IN W.P.NO.22672 OF 2005 05.10.2010