Madras High Court
R.Veerasamy (Deceased) vs The Chief Executive Officer on 26 July, 2024
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
W.P.No.30710 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
W.P.No.30710 of 2014
&
M.P.No.1 of 2014
R.Veerasamy (Deceased)
2.V.Kanagam
3.R.Nagalakshmi
4.V.Rajendran
5.V.Suresh ...Petitioners
Vs.
The Chief Executive Officer,
Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board,
Kuralagam,
Chennai – 108. ...Respondent
(P2 to P5 are substituted as LRs of deceased P1 as per order dated
26.07.2024)
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.30710 of 2014
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order
of the respondent passed in Na.Ka.No.BA1 (3)/14 dated 06.11.2014
and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
implement the order of 9% interest on the belated payment of
commutation value of Rs.1,21,091/- for the period of 01.02.1999 to
11.10.2006 as directed by this Court by order dated 25.11.2011 passed
in W.P.No.23524 of 2005.
For Petitioner : M/s. S.T.P. Kuilmozhi
For Respondent : M/s. R. Uma
ORDER
The short question involved in the above Writ Petition which is filed for a certiorarified mandamus is whether the plaintiff is entitled to pension for the period 01.02.1999 to 11.10.2006 and if so to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2014 passed by the respondent. The 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 short facts are as follows.
2. The petitioner had retired as an employee of the respondent board on 31.12.1998 as Khadi Inspector. The retirement benefits was not granted within reasonable time to the petitioner. On 04.03.1999, Provident Fund to the tune of Rs.10,849/- was disbursed and provisional pension was sanctioned. The respondent had fixed the benefits due to the petitioner only on 29.04.2003 through proceedings in R.C.No.55000/P1/98 despite such fixation, the benefits were not immediately granted. This constrained the petitioner to file W.P.No.23524 of 2005 against the respondent herein and the Assistant Director of the respondent board seeking a direction to the respondent to pay pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension and all other retirement benefits with interest as per the rules.
3. During pendency of the Writ Petition on 12.02.2006, the respondent had remitted a sum of Rs.97,237/- into the petitioner's 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 bank account without giving him any prior notice or information which according to them constituted pension arrears. On 03.05.2006, however, a sum of Rs.845/- was remitted towards DCRG. These amounts were deposited after recovering a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. Thereafter on 03.05.2006, the respondent board had remitted a sum of Rs.1,63,176/- towards a commuted value of pension.
4. The petitioner would submit that on 25.10.2011, this Court had passed orders in the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner granting the relief of 9% interest on the belated payment of pension arrears, DCRG and commutation of pension. Since the order was not complied with the petitioner was constrained to file Cont.P.No.1501 of 2012. After filing of the Contempt petition, the board had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner, that too constituting only a part of the interest amount. Further, the cheque that was issued had bounced. Thereafter, on 13.02.2013, the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.67,878/- towards interest on pension arrears and DCRG only. 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014
5. Meanwhile, the order passed in W.P.No.23524 of 2005 was challenged by the respondent before the Division Bench. By order dated 17.04.2014, the Writ Appeal was dismissed. After dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the contempt petition was taken up and they had made a representation that the petitioner has been drawing full pension without any deduction. However, the statement was proved false in as much as pension pay order itself provided the details of the fixation and disbursement of pension benefits.
6. It showed that the petitioner was drawing a reduced pension of Rs.1950/- + DA for Rs.3250/-. Ultimately, this Court had passed an order dated 16.10.2014 in Cont.P.No.1501 of 2012 directing the petitioner to submit a representation pointing out the anamolies in the settlement of pension and interest. On receipt of the same, the 1 st 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 respondent was directed to consider and pass orders within a period of one month.
7. Thereafter, the respondent by proceedings dated 06.11.2014 directed recovery of a sum of Rs.28,231/- and Rs.1000/- from pension for 28 months, as if the respondents had over paid the interest to the tune of Rs.28,231/-. This is totally contrary to the very calculation submitted by the respondent. Even as per the respondent board interest at 9% per annum was Rs.67,878/- and belated payment of pension arrears of Rs.97,327/- for the period from 01.02.1999 to 11.10.1996 and the very same rate of interest was to be paid to death – cum – retirement benefit of Rs.845/- from 01.12.1999 to 02.05.2006 and the DCRG of Rs.845/-. However, no interest was paid on the belated payment of commuation.
8. A counter has been filed. Since the issue revolves around the 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 interest payable in respect of the commutation value of pension I am only referring to the counter with reference to the above. As per counter, the respondent would submit that in the first week of October 2004 the petitioner had received all the pensionary benefits and in the details set out there under it is seen that a total sum of Rs.1,63,176/- was the sanctioned under the head commutation. From the said amount, a sum of Rs.42,085/- has been recovered. Thereafter, the balance sum of Rs.1,21,091/- was paid vide cheque dated 12.10.2006.
9. The respondent would submit that the petitioner was allowed to retire on 31.12.1998 on his giving undertaking to recover dues if any which was accepted by the board. The board had also sanctioned pensionery benefits on 24.09.2004.
10. The respondent would further submit that what remained to be paid was only the pension arrears and the amount due under the head of death cum retirement gratuity. The respondent would submit 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 that they have paid an interest on the pension arrears for the period from 01.01.1999 to 12.10.2006. They would further submit that there was no provisions under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978 to pay interest on commuted value. Therefore, they sought for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.
11. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records.
12. This is a case where the respondent had deliberately deprived the petitioner of his terminal benefits in time and has thereafter made him run from pillar to post to receive same with interest. In addition one of the cheques issued to the petitioner was dishonoured and further they have also made misleading statements before this Court. The filing of the contempt petition has also not dettered the respondent from not complying with the orders of this Court. The commutation of pension is giving up a part or all of the pension payable from the retirement in exchange for a minimum 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 lumpsum payment. The intent of the above is to help the person who was enjoying a monthly salary till the date of his superannuation to tide over any financial needs that arise post the retirement. This scheme is available to all the pensioners. The commutation value of the pension is a part of the amount that was payable to the petitioner.
13. Admittedly, this sum has been paid after delay and that too when the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondent to pay pension, gratuity and commutation value was pending. On 25.10.2011, W.P.No.23524 of 2005 was allowed where this Court had directed 9% interest from 01.02.1999 to 11.10.2006 to be paid on the commutation value of Rs.1,21,091/-. This order was challenged in W.A.No.1970 of 2013 and the Division Bench had dismissed the Writ Appeal. Therefore, direction to pay interest had become final. Despite this order and contempt petition being filed, the respondent has not come forward to pay interest on the said sum. Not only has the respondent not paid interest on the commutation value but has 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 now ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.28,231/- which according to them was an interest paid in excess. The conduct of the respondent has to be deprecated.
14. In the light of the fact that the petitioner had been directed to pay interest at 9% from 01.02.1999 to 11.10.2006 and the same has not been complied, the respondent shall pay the said sum within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Post the matter for reporting compliance on 23.09.2024. In case the amount is not disbursed to the petitioner within the said time, the respondent shall appear before this Court taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent in flouting the orders of this court including the contempt proceedings.
16. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 26.07.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan To The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi & Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai – 108. 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 P.T. ASHA, J, kan 12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30710 of 2014 W.P.No. 30710 of 2014 26.07.2024 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis