A.Sankaranantham v. State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY A.Sankaranantham ... Petitioner vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Theni Region, Theni.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Letter No.2587/CH1/2017-2, dated 20.04.2017, on the file of the Respondent No.1 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide interest at the rate of 12% for the 1/7
belated payment of the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.12,86,769/- (Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) to the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2004 to 06.03.2012 within the time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar Government Advocate *****
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 20.04.2017, on the file of the Respondent No. 1 and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to provide interest at the rate of 12% for the belated payment of the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.12,86,769/- (Twelve Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) to the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2004 to 06.03.2012 within the time stipulated by this Court. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Theni. On the verge of superannuation on 2/7
30.06.2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide G.O.(2D)No.56, dated 23.06.2004. Since the disciplinary proceedings was pending, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(MD)No.7864 of 2007, to direct the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time. This Court directed the respondents to complete it within 5 months. The respondents failed to comply with the order and filed an extension petition. The extension was granted for further six months.
3. Since the petitioner had attained superannuation and was placed under prolonged suspension, moreover, a criminal case was pending, the petitioner again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.11756 of 2009 and this Court, vide order, dated 25.03.2011, directed the respondents to revoke the suspension order and allow the petitioner to retire from service and also directed to settle the terminal benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner also filed W.P. (MD)No.6370 of 2011 and prayed to quash the charge memo, dated 18.04.2011 and this Court quashed the charge memo and allowed the writ petition. 3/7
4. Since the charge memo was quashed, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents stating that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner and prayed to pay all the terminal benefits. Thereafter, the Government decided to withdraw the criminal case and the same was withdrawn. After the withdrawal, the respondents have paid the terminal benefits to a tune of Rs.12,86,769/-. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner was allowed to retire as early as 2004 itself. But the terminal benefits were paid in the year 2012. Hence, the petitioner is eligible to get interest for the belated terminal benefits.
5. The 3rd respondent had filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner on various dates as stated in the following table:
Sl.No. Particulars Interest Amount Rs.
Paid on 1.
TNGESPF - 1984 11,893 12.5.2015 2.
TNGESPF - 2000 1,498 12.5.2015 3.
Terminal Leave Salary 1,21,458 12.5.2015 4.
Commutation 1,04,865 18.7.2017 5.
Residual Commutation of Pension 42,167 12.5.2015 Total 2,81,881 4/7
6.The petitioner was paid gratuity of Rs.2,33,341/- and the same was paid along with interest. However, the petitioner is claiming that the respondents calculated the interest from 2011 onwards, but he is entitled to interest from 2004 to 2012.
7. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to interest for gratuity as per the statutory rate prescribed in the Payment of Gratuity Act. As far as the commutation and residual commutation of pension is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest, since the commutation are paid after the requisition is submitted by the employees. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the interest for these two payments under commutation and residual commutation pension. As far as the payment under TNGESPF - 1984 and TNGESPF - 2000, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6%. For terminal leave salary, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% for the period from 2004 to 2012.
5/7
8.With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 08.11.2022 Internet : Yes Tmg To 1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.
3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Theni Region, Theni.
6/7
S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg 08.11.2022 7/7