W.P.No.9934 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.9934 of 2022
G.Natarajan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Villupuram) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Valudhareddy (P.O.), Salalmedu,
Villupuram.
2.The Administrator,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees
Pension Fund Trust,
No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay
18% interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits of Gratuity,
Commutation of Pension and Encashment of Leave Salary amount from
31.07.2018 i.e., date of retirement to 31.08.2019 of actual payment made
along with refund of amount deducted towards employee contribution in the
arrear salary of 7th Pay Commission implementation but not credited in PF
Account, Social Security Schemes, Earned Leave Surrender, Arrears of
Dearness Allowance while in service, amount of I.R.T. payable and all other
attendant benefits within the stipulated period.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Varunkumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Aswin, Standing Counsel for R1
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.9934 of 2022
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to pay 18% interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits of Gratuity, Commutation of Pension and Encashment of Leave Salary amount from 31.07.2018 i.e., date of retirement to 31.08.2019 of actual payment made along with refund of amount deducted towards employee contribution in the arrear salary of 7th Pay Commission implementation but not credited in PF Account, Social Security Schemes, Earned Leave Surrender, Arrears of Dearness Allowance while in service, amount of I.R.T. payable and all other attendant benefits within the stipulated period.
2. The petitioner has sought for two reliefs in the present writ petition. One is for payment of interest towards belated payment of terminal benefits and another for consideration of his representation seeking for payment of arrears towards 7th Pay Commission implementation on various heads.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.07.2018 and the terminal benefits were settled to the petitioner on 31.08.2019 and the petitioner has approached https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 W.P.No.9934 of 2022 this Court with a delay of 3 years after the settlement of terminal benefits and therefore, prays for dismissal of this writ petition.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court within the reasonable period of three years from the date of settlement of terminal benefits. According to the respondents, they are facing severe financial crunch for settlement of terminal benefits to the employees of the respondent Corporation and if the petitioner alone is granted the relief of interest for belated payment, it would open flood gate to several other employees to approach this Court seeking interest, thereby the respondents Corporation will be put to heavy financial burden.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5151-5152 of 2008 dated 13.08.2008 [Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh], with regard reasonable period of payment of arrears, if necessary, in case of belated claims has observed as follows:
“5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 W.P.No.9934 of 2022 wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.
6. In this case, the delay of 16 years would affect the consequential claim for arrears. The High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted the relief relating to arrears to only three years before the date of writ petition, or from the date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances. (emphasis supplied).
7. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed. The order of the Division Bench directing payment of disability pension from the date it fell due, is set aside. As a consequence, the order of the learned Single Judge is restored.”
6. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would reveals that in the said case, the respondent, while working in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 W.P.No.9934 of 2022 Indian Army, was invalidated out of service, in medical category on 13.11.1983. The respondent therein/employee has belated approached the High Court in 1999, after a delay of 16 years, seeking a direction to the appellants therein to pay him disability pension. It is not known whether the employee has approached the authorities by way of representation in the interregnum. A learned Single Judge, vide order dated 06.12.2000, had allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to grant him disability pension at the rates permissible and insofar as arrears, the relief was restricted to 38 months prior to filing of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case having felt that the delay of 16 years was attributed on the part of the respondent therein, has observed that the High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to 16 years and that too with interest and therefore, restricted the relief relating to arrears only to 3 years before the date of writ petition or from the date of demand to date of writ petition whichever was lesser and it ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances. Thus, the reasonable period with regard to belated claims have been determined as 3 years by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 W.P.No.9934 of 2022
7. In the case on hand, the petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2018 and his terminal benefits were settled on 31.08.2019 and he has approached this Court within 3 years from the date of settlement of terminal benefits i.e., within the reasonable period as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision and therefore, he is entitled for awarding interest for the belated payment of terminal benefits. Considering the fact that there is some delay on the part of the respondents in payment of terminal benefits and that the petitioner has approached this Court within the reasonable period of three years from the date of settlement of terminal benefits and that in similar circumstances this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 4% per annum for belated payment of terminal benefits, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to similar relief.
8. In the light of the same, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay penal interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the belated payment of the retirement benefits for the period from the date of the retirement till the date of actual disbursement, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that if the petitioner has not already given up https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6 W.P.No.9934 of 2022 their right for claiming interest for the retirement benefits. It is also made clear that in default, the respondent-Corporation shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner.
9. Insofar as payment of arrears for 7th Pay Commission implementation is concerned, the petitioner has already submitted representations dated 12.11.2019 and 15.12.2021 and in the light of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
08.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Jvm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7
W.P.No.9934 of 2022
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Jvm
To
1.Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd., Valudhareddy (P.O.), Salalmedu, Villupuram.
2.The Administrator, Tamil Nadu State Transport Employees Pension Fund Trust, No.2, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-600 002.
W.P.No.9934 of 2022 08.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8