Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs G.Ravindranath on 3 August, 2021
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
