Madras High Court
Dr.M.E.Krishnakumar vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 21 January, 2021
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
Dr.M.E.Krishnakumar ... Petitioner
Vs
1. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services,
Chennai - 600 006.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to sanction and
disburse compound interest forthwith at 18% per annum for the period from
05.07.2004 to 19.12.2013 for the delayed payment of Rs.2,63,868/- to the
petitioner towards Surrender Earned Leave Salary of 240 days and
concerned leave for 90 days.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam, GA
ORDER
The petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction
to the first respondent to sanction and disburse interest at 18% per annum
for the period from 05.07.2004 to 19.12.2013 for the delayed payment of
Rs.2,63,868/- towards Surrender Earned Leave Salary of 240 days and
concerned leave for 90 days.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that while he was serving as Joint
Director of Animal Husbandry, Chennai, he was placed under suspension
vide G.O.(3D) No.21, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH1) Department,
dated 28.06.2004. Due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was
not permitted to retire from service on reaching the age of superannuation
on 30.06.2004. Since no charges were framed nearly after six years, the
petitioner preferred WP.No.24764 of 2010 against the order of suspension
passed by the first respondent and the said writ petition was dismissed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
this Court on 22.03.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed
WA.No.939 of 2011, which was allowed on 04.07.2012. Pursuant to the
same, the petitioner was permitted to retire from service by G.O.(2D) No.31,
Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (AH1) Department, dated 12.04.2013.
Thereafter, he was disbursed with surrender, earned leave and unearned
leave encashment, however, belatedly. Hence, he has come up with this writ
petition for the aforesaid relief.
3.Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit
inter alia stating that the payment of leave salary has been made to the
petitioner after he was allowed to retire without prejudice to the criminal
case pending against him and hence, there is no delay in this case. It is
further stated therein that the payment of interest is allowed by the
Government only for the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement
Gratuity as per Rule 45-A of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 and
hence, the petitioner cannot claim interest for the belated payment of
surrender earned leave and unearned leave encashment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
4.Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that in an identical case in WP.No.3051
of 2014, this Court by order dated 03.02.2014, directed the respondents
therein to grant interest for the belated payment of DCRG, commuted value
of pension, etc., the relevant passage of which reads as under:
“3.Today, when the writ petition is taken up, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1 (Government of Tamil Nadu v. M. Deivasigamani),
wherein, following the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in S.K.
Due V. State of Haryana ((2008) 3 SCC 44), this Court, at paragraph Nos.6 & 7,
held as hereunder:
"6.The contention of the appellant that as per the
Government norms, interest can be paid only on Death-cum-
Retirement Gratuity, in case of delay and the same cannot be
awarded to any other retiral benefits, is not tenable, in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in S.K. Due vs. State of Haryana
(2008) 3 SCC 44. In the reported case, the appellant therein was
served with three charge sheets / show cause notices in June 1998,
few days before his retirement. However, he retired on 30.6.1998
on reaching the age of superannuation. He was paid provisional
pension, but other retiral benefits were not given to him, which
included commuted value of pension, leave encashment, grauity,
etc. They were withheld till the finalisation of disciplinary
proceedings. While answering the issue as to whether the appellant
therein was entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral
benefits in the absence of any statutory rules administrative
instructions or guidelines, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 14 of
the judgment, held as follows:
"14. In the circumstances, prima facie, we are of
the view that the grievance voiced by the appellant
appears to be well founded that he would be entitled
to interest on such benefits. If there are statutory
rules occupying the field, the appellant could claim
payment of interest relying on such rules. If there are
administrative instructions, guidelines or norms
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
prescribed for the purpose, the appellant may claim
benefit of interest on that basis. But even in the
absence of statutory rules, administrative instructions
or guidelines, an employee can claim interest under
Part III of the Constitution relying on Articles 14, 19
and 21 of the Constitution. The submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that retiral benefits
are not in the nature of "bounty" is, in our opinion,
well founded and needs no authority in support
thereof. In that view of the matter, in our considered
opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing
the petition in limine even without issuing notice to
the respondents."
7.In view of the judgment of the 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 can make his claim for interest, under Part III
of the Constitution, relying on Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution."
The learned counsel further submitted that, following the said judgments,
this Court, in an identical matter, in W.P. No. 34853 of 2013, by order dated
20.12.2013, allowed the writ petition and directed the 1st respondent therein to
grant interest for the belated payment of commuted value of pension, encashment
of leave, GPF and SPF from the date of retirement of the petitioner therein till the
date of payment.
4.Therefore, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in S.K. Due vs. State of Haryana (2008) 3 SCC 44, referred supra, which
has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Government of Tamil
Nadu vs. M.Deivasigamani, (2009) 3 MLJ 1, I am of the considered opinion that
the petitioner herein is entitled to payment of interest for the belated payment of
gratuity and leave encashment.
5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents
herein to grant interest, as applicable, on the delayed payments of DCRG,
commuted value of pension, Special PF amount and Provident Fund Subscription
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
amount with effect from 01.05.2004 and encashment of leave on private affairs,
encashment of earned leave and difference between subsistence allowance and
monthly pension with effect from 01.02.2004, till the respective dates of actual
disbursement of the said benefits to the petitioner herein, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”
Hence, the learned counsel sought for similar order in this writ petition as
well.
5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent fairly submitted that the respondents would consider the
claim of the petitioner in the light of the order cited on the side of the
petitioner.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having
regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and
also following the order as referred to above, this Court directs the
respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2014, if
not already considered, and pass appropriate orders, in the light of the
aforesaid order dated 03.02.2014 passed in WP.No.3051 of 2014, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
7.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
21.01.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
av
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Animal Husbandry,
Dairying and Fisheries Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
av
W.P.No.21563 of 2014
21.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
