Madras High Court
The Director Of School Education vs S.Peter Raj on 5 August, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :05.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6298 of 2021
1.The Director of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
2.The District Educational Officer,
Tiruchendur,
Thoothukudi District-628 215. ... Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Peter Raj ... Respondent No.1
2.The Manager of R.C.Schools,
Bishop's House,
Thoothukudi-628 001.
3.The Correspondent,
St.Mary's Higher Secondary School,
Pothakalanvilai,
Thoothukudi District-628 702. ... Respondents 2 and 3
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.3576 of 2021, dated 24.02.2021, on the
file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan
Government Advocate
For Respondents : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
or Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar
for R.1
*****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.3576 of 2021, the
respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have filed the above writ appeal.
2. It is the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner that the
appellants had belatedly disbursed the provident fund amount due to him and
therefore, he seeks for interest on the belated payment.
3. After taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants
to pay interest to the writ petitioner at the rate of 6% per annum on the
belated payment of provident fund, commencing from the date of retirement,
till the date of actual disbursement. The writ petitioner sought for release of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
the amount of Rs.2,60,603/-, which according to him is the interest calculated
by the appellants on the belated payment. It was also brought to the notice
of the learned Single Judge that the special provident fund amount was not
released by the official respondents.
4. The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vijay
L.Mahrotra Vs. State of Utter Pradesh reported in (2001)9 SCC 687,
held that when the retirement benefits are not paid on the date of retirement
or soon after, the retiree would be entitled for interest on the belated
payment. That apart, this Court, in the judgment made in W.A.(MD)Nos.1349
and 1350 of 2021, dated, 12.07.2021, held that the retiree is entitled to 6%
interest for the period of delay. The relevant portion of the judgment reads
as follows:
“5.So far as the Provident Fund and Earned Leave Salary are
concerned, the learned Single Bench has denied the same on
the ground of pandemic. This, in our considered view, is
untenable because, the Provident Fund and Earned Leave
Salary have also been held to be retirement benefits and any
delay in settling the same would attract interest payable for
the delay. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another in Civil
Appeal No.184 of 2008 dated 09.01.2008, will come to
the aid and assistance of the appellants. Therefore, we are
of the clear view that the delay in payment of Provident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
Fund and Earned Leave Salary also to be compensated by
payment of interest, which we fix at 6% p.a. It is submitted
before us that insofar as appellant Rajendran, the retirement
benefits were settled 21 months after he retired and insofar
as Gnanasekaran, it was settled after 19 months he retired
from service.
6.In the light of the above, these Writ Appeals are
allowed and that portion of the impugned orders declining
grant of interest on belated payment of Provident Fund and
Earned Leave Salary is set aside and the respondent
Corporation is directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
for the period of delay. This direction be complied with within
a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
this judgment. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
5. The Division Bench also took into consideration the decision of the
Honourable Supreme Court made in Civil Appeal No.184 of 2008, dated
09.01.2008 in S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and another and directed
the authorities to pay 6% interest for the period of delay. The appellants
have not produced any contra judgment in support of their case.
6. In such view of the matter, following the ratio laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court made in W.A.(MD)No.1349 and 1350 of 2021 cited supra, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
Judge. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
Index :Yes/No (M.D.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
Internet :Yes/No 05.08.2021
SSL
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
AND
S.ANANTHI,J.
SSL
W.A.(MD)No.1531 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6298 of 2021
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
