The State Of Tamilnadu v. T.Sampath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Writ Appeal No.420 of 2016 and CMP.No.6158 of 2016 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector, Panchayat Development Wing, Krishnagiri District.
... Appellants vs.
T.Sampath ... Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 23.03.2015 made in WP.No.2118 of 2014 passed by the learned single judge of this Court. Prayer in WP 2118 of 2014:
Writ petition filed u/A 226 of the constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings NO.20900/2012/K1 dated 5.9.2013 and quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents herein to pay 12% interest (compounded annually) on the delayed payment of all retirement and pensionary benefits after deducting a sum of Rs.28 891/- and to pay the entire amount.
For Appellants : Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, SGP For Respondent : Mr.M.Ravi
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.) This Writ Appeal is filed by the State challenging the
order dated 23.03.2015 made in WP.No.2118 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in and by which, the State was directed to pay interest at 9% for the belated payment of DCRG amount from 01.12.2012 to 30.06.2013 and commutation value of pension from 01.12.2002 to 30.06.2013 to the petitioner/respondent herein.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
Originally, the respondent was appointed as Junior Assistant in Rural Development Department and was subsequently promoted as Block Development Officer. While he was working so, he was issued with a charge memo in TDP DE No.2/2001 dated 05.03.2001. He was due to retire on 30.11.2002. However, due to pendency of the charge memo, he was placed under suspension on 30.11.2002. By order dated 08.06.2006, he was permitted to retire from service. After the culmination of disciplinary proceedings, he was paid retirement benefits, but he was not paid interest for the belated payment. When he claimed interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, the same was denied on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Challenging the same, the respondent filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by order 23.03.
2015, allowed the writ petition and directed the State to pay interest at 9% for the belated payment of DCRG amount and commutation pension from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. While doing so, the learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2014 (9) Scale 78, (D.D.Tewari (D) through Lrs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others) to the effect that in case the amount due to the employee is withheld, the same would give rise to a claim for payment of interest. Aggrieved against the same, the present writ appeal came to be filed by the State.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Appellants-State submits that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent with regard to charges involving financial issues and misconduct under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Due to the same, he was placed under suspension on 30.11.2002. The said suspension was revoked on 30.01.2006 and the respondent was permitted to retire from service. Subsequently, he was paid provisional pension with effect from 01.12.2012. Since the disciplinary proceeding was pending, the proposal for retirement benefits to the respondent was forwarded to the Principal Accountant General only after its finalisation. In such circumstances, there is no fault on the part of the State in disbursing the retiral benefits to the respondent belatedly. Therefore, the State is not liable to pay interest for the
belated payment of retirement benefits to the respondent.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - employee submits that an employee is entitled to claim interest on belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits, even in the absence of statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines, under Part III of the Constitution of India and reliance was placed on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Govt. of T.N. v. M.Deivasigamani (2009 (3) MLJ 1), wherein, the Division Bench has directed the State to pay interest at 10% for the belated payment of retiral benefits. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, awarding interest at 9% for the belated payment of DCRG amount and commutation pension is just and reasonable and no interference is warranted in this writ appeal.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the documents placed before this Court.
6. In the judgment reported in 2014 (9) Scale 78 (D.D.Tewari (D) through Lrs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others) which was relied on by the learned Single Judge in the order passed in the writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case the amount due to the employee is withheld, the same would give rise to a claim for payment of interest and accordingly, directed to pay interest at 9% from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment. Similarly, in the decision reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1 (Govt. of T.N. v. M.Deivasigamani) relied on by the respondent, the Division Bench ordered interest at 10% for belated payment of pension and other retiral benefits.
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent-employee was placed under suspension on 30.11.2002, due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings with regard to the charges involving financial issues and misconduct under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Thereafter, by the order of the District Collector, Villupuram dated 30.01.2006, he was permitted to retire from service with effect from 30.11.2002 without prejudice to the disciplinary proceeding pending against him. Subsequently, by order dated 08.06.2006, he was granted provisional pension with effect from 01.12.2002 and the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him was concluded on 30.01.2012. However, he was paid the DCRG amount and commutation pension only on 30.06.2013. From the above, it is evident that because of the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the appellants, which was finalised only after a period of
almost 10 years from the date of retirement of the respondent, the retiral benefits were not paid. The fault hence lies with the appellants in not concluding the disciplinary proceeding early and for that, the respondent cannot be put to hardship. Therefore, we are of the view that for the delay in payment of retirement benefits to the respondent by the State for no fault of him, the State is liable to pay interest, in the light of the ratio laid down in (i)D.D.Tewari (D) through Lrs. v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd and others (2014 (9) Scale 78) and (ii)Govt. of T.N. v. M.Deivasigamani (2009 (3) MLJ 1).
8. For the reasons stated above and in view of the ratio laid down in the decisions referred above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge, with regard to the interest awarded for the belated payment of DCRG amount and commutation pension.
9. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants that the disciplinary proceedings was concluded on 30.01.2012 and the DCRG and commutation pension were paid on 10.05.2013, we are inclined to modify the rate of interest awarded by the learned single judge. Accordingly, the rate of interest awarded for the belated payment of DCRG amount and commutation pension is reduced from 9% to 7% from 31.01.2012 to 10.05.2013.
10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed in part. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rk To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector, Panchayat Development Wing, Krishnagiri District.
1 cc to M/s.M.Ravi, Advocate, sr.29143 W.A.No.420 of 2016 rp co kra 29.06.2016