Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs G.Ravindranath on 3 August, 2021
Author: Pushpa Sathyanarayana
Bench: Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Krishnan Ramasamy
W.A.No.771 of 2020 and
C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020
The Commissioner
Karaikudi Municipality
Karaikudi - 635 002 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.G.Ravindranath
2.The Secretary to Government
Municipal Administration & Water
Supply Department
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009
3.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005
4.The Director of Local Fund Audit
"Kuralgam", 4th Floor
Chennai - 600 108 ...Respondents
***
PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.5815 of
2013.
***
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/12
W.A.No.771 of 2020 and
C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.R.Arumugam
for Mr.A.S.Thambusamy
For R1 : Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham
For R2 to R4 : Mr.R.Neelakandan,
State Govt. Counsel
JUDGMENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
This intra-court appeal is preferred by the Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality challenging the order dated 15.07.2019 passed in W.P. No.771 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of commuted value of pension to the petitioner at Rs.1,21,968/- from 1.8.99 to 31.12.2012 within a reasonable time.
2. The first respondent herein/writ petitioner retired from service as Revenue Inspector on superannuation and he was relieved from the services of the appellant-municipality on 31.07.1999, subject to audit objections pending against him in other municipalities. The appellant has forwarded the pension proposal on 29.11.1999 and the same was returned by the fourth _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 2/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 respondent herein, namely the Director of Local Fund Audit, Chennai, on 10.2.2000, citing pending audit objections. Thereafter, the fourth respondent herein issued an order to regulate the pension and gratuity of the petitioner after a period of 13 years after his retirement. The petitioner having received the regular pension and other benefits, filed a writ petition in W.P. No.1654 of 2010 for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to sanction Death Cum Retirement Gratuity and commutation of pension due to the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum and a further direction to the respondents to draw and disburse the amount within a reasonable time.
3. The said writ petition was disposed on 13.03.2012 directing the second respondent herein to consider petitioner's representation after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass orders in a time bound manner.
4. Thereafter in compliance of the said order, the second respondent herein vide G.O. No.243 dated 27.9.2012, considered the case of the petitioner and ordered for sanction of interest for the belated payment of DCRG and directed the Municipal Administration _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 3/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 to ensure the correctness of interest calculation as per the orders in force. The petitioner received a sum of Rs.3,39,043/- as interest towards belated payment of DCRG. He has also received a sum of Rs.1,21,968/- on 8.6.2012 as commuted pension.
5. The petitioner once again filed a writ petition in W.P. No.5815 of 2013 for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the belated payment of commuted value of pension to the petitioner at Rs.1,21,968/- from 1.8.1999 to 31.12.2012, within a reasonable time.
6. The learned single judge, after hearing both sides, passed the following order:
"3. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was awarded the relief of terminal benefits by G.O.Ms.No.243, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (ME.1) Department, dated 27.09.2012 and the entire amount has been paid to him. The Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.1650 of 2012 and this Court, by an order dated 13.03.2012, directed the Respondents therein to pass orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the 3rd Respondent issued an order regulating the pension and _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 4/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 gratuity of the Petitioner after a period of 13 years of his retirement. Now, the only ground taken by the Respondents is that when there is no provision under the Rules, the question of sanction of interest does not arise.
4. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court has held that in cases of belated payment, interest shall be paid, as terminal benefits due to the employee is not a gratis or bounty in the absence of statutory rules. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Dr.Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 438, is extracted hereunder:
"... 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 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."
5. Following the said decision of the Apex Court, this Court, by an order dated 17.12.2008 in Writ Appeal No.886 of 2007 in the case of Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M.Deivasigamani, has held as under:
"7. In view of the judgment of the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 5/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 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 claims for interest under Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution."
6. On a reading of the above decisions, it is very clear that the Petitioner would be entitled to interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of Statutory Rules and technicalities would not stand in the way of granting relief to the Petitioner. The contention of the Respondents that Writ Petition is not maintainable as G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 27.09.2012 has not been challenged by the Petitioner, cannot be acceded.
7. Since, terminal benefits were paid to the Petitioner, interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, has to be paid to the Petitioner from the date the amount became due at the rate of 9% per annum and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of Writ Petition. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The interest payable to the Petitioner shall be recovered from the Officials, who are responsible for making belated payment of pension, as the Apex Court in the case of Central Co-operative Consumers' Store Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Himachal Pradesh reported in 1993 (3) SCC 214, has ordered recovery of the amount of back _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 6/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 wages to the employee from the personal salary of the Officers of the Society, who have been responsible for the endless litigation. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"5. Public money has been wasted due to adamant behaviour not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before one or the other authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite unequal strength the opposite-party has managed to survive. We are informed that the opposite- party has been reinstated. This was put forward as bona fide conduct of petitioner to persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages. Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite-party has been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years. That for such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner-society has to suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable. But considering the agony and suffering of the opposite-party that amount cannot be a proper recompense. We, therefore, dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it. We however leave it open to the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages paid by it to the opposite-party from the personal salary of the officers of the society who have been responsible for this endless litigation including the officer who was responsible for terminating the services of the opposite-party. We may clarify that the permission given shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay the respondent her back wages. Step if any to recover _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 7/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 the amount shall be taken only after payment is made to the opposite-party as directed by the High Court."
7. Questioning the legality and correctness of the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. The main contention of the learned State Government counsel is that there was no delay on the part of the officials in calculating the commutation pension and payment of pension, but it was due to the instigation of enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department and the audit objections, which were pending at the time of retirement of the writ petitioner/first respondent. After clearance of enquiry by Vigilance and Anti Corruption and audit objections, the Government by letter No.3310/C4/2012 dated 09.05.2012 sanctioned full pension to the writ petitioner/first respondent and immediately after sanction of full pension, the commensurate pension of Rs.1,21,968/- was paid on 08.06.2012.
_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 8/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020
10. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he retired on 31.07.1999, pending audit objection and enquiry by Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. After various representations and orders passed in the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioner, the enquiry of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department against the writ petitioner was dropped, amidst objections. The Government sanctioned full pension to the respondent by G.O. No.238, Finance Department dated 01.06.2012. The commutation on the full pension was calculated and a sum of Rs.1,21,968/- was arrived and paid to the writ petitioner on 08.06.2012 and hence there is no delay on the part of the officials in payment of commutation of amount of Rs.1,21,968/-. But, the learned single Judge, without considering the above facts, directed the appellant to pay interest on Rs.1,21,968/- from 01.08.1999 to 31.12.2012 and further directed that the said amount to be recovered from the officials of the Municipality.
11. The said observation of the learned single Judge, has put the officials of the Municipality under predicament. We find some force and substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 9/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 appellant that there is no delay on the part of the officials of the Municipality, but it was only due to the pending enquiry by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and the audit objections, we deem it fit to expunge the direction of the learned single Judge ordering recovery of amount from the officials of the Municipality and confirm the order of the learned single Judge in all other respects. Accordingly, the direction of the learned single Judge ordering recovery of amount from the officials of the Municipality, is expunged. In all other respects, the order of the learned single Judge, is confirmed. It is made clear that the first respondent is certainly entitled to interest for the delayed payment of commutation pension as has been ordered by the writ court. The said payment may be made, as expeditiously as possible.
12. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in part only to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
03.08.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Asr
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 10/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 To
1.The Secretary to Government Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
3.The Director of Local Fund Audit "Kuralgam", 4th Floor Chennai - 600 108 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 11/12 W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asr W.A.No.771 of 2020 and C.M.P. No.10185 of 2020 Date : 03.08.2021 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 12/12