Madras High Court
S.Ravindran vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 7 July, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
S.Ravindran : Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports (HL1) Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Superintending Engineer,
National Highways,
Highways Department,
Perumalpuram-627 007,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.6881 of 2021, dated
26.03.2021 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Visvalingam
For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
We have heard Mr.S.Visvalingam, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.A.K.Manickam, learned Standing Counsel for
Government appearing for the respondents.
2.This Writ Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the
order dated 26.03.2021, in W.P(MD)No.6881 of 2021.
3.The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the
proceedings of the second respondent dated 09.03.2021, whereunder, the
appellant's claim of interest at 18% p.a. on the belated payment of
encashment of leave salary for the period from 01.11.2014 to 14.09.2020
was rejected. The learned Writ Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the retirement
benefits were paid to the appellant and because in the impugned order
passed by the second respondent it is stated that there is no provision of
law for payment of interest on belated payment of encashment of leave
salary, the Court cannot issue any direction.
4.The entitlement of the appellant which was claimed by him
forms part of the retirement benefits and the question would be whether
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
interest is payable on account of the delay in settlement of the retirement
benefits. The respondents would state that the delay had occasioned on
account of the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the
appellant and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed by the
department. To be noted, the charges framed against the appellant has
been dropped. In such circumstances, whether the interest is payable or
not is the question involved in this writ appeal.
5.Identical issue was considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of G.Kalyanam Vs. The Principal Secretary to
Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection
Department, and two others in W.A.(MD)No.118 of 2017 . In the said
case, what was withheld was the Death cum Retirement Gratuity and the
question was whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the Death
cum Retirement Gratuity. The Court held that the interest is payable and
the operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“6.The question would be as to whether the
appellant would be entitled for interest on the Death
cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG). Rule 45(A) as it
stood amended by after insertion of sub Rule (i) (a),
with effect from 10.05.1991 vide G.O.Ms.No.510,
Finance (Pension), dated 27.06.1995, provides for
payment for interest on Death cum Retirement
Gratuity, which is withheld on account of the
disciplinary proceedings pending against the retired
Government servant. The said Rule reads as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
45A-(1-A). The period beyond which
such interest is payable shall be as follows.-
(i)in the case of a Government servant
retired otherwise on superannuation and where
the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is withheld
on account on the disciplinary proceeding
pending against him.-
(a)three months from the date of
retirement where the Government servant is
exonerated of all charges and where the
Deathcum-Retirement Gratuity is paid on the
conclusion of disciplinary proceedings:
(b) ......
(c) ......
7.In terms of Clause (a) of the Section 45-A
(1-A) (i), the Government servant is entitled for
interest after three months from the date of
retirement, where he is exonerated from all the
charges and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is paid on
the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
8.The learned Special Government Pleader
would submit that the disciplinary proceedings stood
dropped only on 18.10.2013 and at best three months
thereafter, the appellant would be entitled for interest
till the DCRG was settled on 10.02.2015.
9.We are unable to accept the said
contention as the Rule does not provide for such a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
contingency, but only states that the Government
servant is entitled for interest after three months from
the date of retirement, where he is exonerated of all
the charges and the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is
paid on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Admittedly, the appellant has been permitted to retire
with effect from 31.01.2007 as he has been fully
exonerated / dropped all charges framed against him.
Thereafter, from April 2007, the appellant is entitled
for interest in terms of above provision.
10.It is brought to our notice that the
Government, vide G.O.D).No.136, Cooperation, Good
and Consumer Protection (CH1) Department, dated
07.05.2015 considered some what a similar case of
one Tr.K.S.Rajamanickam, Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, against whom, the charge
proceedings were initiated and he was not permitted
to retire and ultimately, he was exonerated of the
charges and allowed to retire and the Government had
directed payment of interest. The stand taken by the
Government in the said G.O., is squarely applicable to
the appellant. Therefore, we are inclined to grant the
relief sought for by the appellant in the writ petition.
11.For all the above reasons, this writ appeal
is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the
respondents are directed to pay interest at the
admissible rate on the expiry of three months from the
date of appellant's retirement ie., 31.01.2007. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
above direction be complied with by the respondents
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. No costs.”
6.It is beneficial to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Dua Vs. State of Haryana and
another in Civil Appeal No.184 of 2008 dated 09.01.2008, wherein,
it has been held as follows:
“In the circumstances, prima facie, 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 in the
field, the appellant could claim payment of interest
relying on such Rules. If there are Administrative
Instructions, Guidelines or Norms prescribed for the
purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on
that basis. But even in absence 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.”
7.In the light of the above, since the benefit claimed by the
appellant part takes the character of the retirement benefits, the above
rule can be made applicable and the interest has to be paid. Though the
appellant claims 18% interest, the same cannot be allowed and interest at
the rate of 6% is considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
8.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order passed
by the second respondent dated 09.03.2021 is set aside and the
respondents are directed to settle the said amount together with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
07.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR
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.1326 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1326 of 2021
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
