Madras High Court
Saraswathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 January, 2022
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
Saraswathi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The state of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Secretary to the Government,
Department of Rural Development,
4th Floor, St.George,
Chennai - 600 108.
2. The Director,
Department of Rural Development (Audit),
Kurazhagam, 4th Floor,
Chennai - 600 108.
3. The Director,
Local Fund Audit,
4th Floor, Nandhanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
4. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5. The Commissioner,
Thirumangalam Panchayat Union,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.16467/U.O.O.S(2)/2020 dated 28.10.2020 and quash the same
as illegal, arbitrary, violation of law and further direct the first and
second respondents herein to take necessary steps to pay the interest for
the belated payment of Death-cum-Retirement benefits of Sundaraj who
died on 26.11.2005, in accordance with Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu
For Respondents : Mr.A.Kannan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed as against the order dated
28.10.2020, passed by the third respondent, rejecting the request of the
petitioner for interest to the belated payment of terminal benefits to the
petitioner.
2. Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's husband served as a Night Watchman in the
Panchayat Union Office, Thirumangalam Panchayat Union and died on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
26.11.2005. The petitioner's husband, while in service, expired leaving
the petitioner and her son. The petitioner has applied for the terminal
benefits, family pension, death-cum-retirement benefits of her husband.
One Thavamani has raised an objection that she is also the legal heir of
the deceased employee Sundarraj. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a
suit before the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam in O.S. No. 49 of
2006 and the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated
29.07.2011.
3. In the meantime, the said Thavamani, claiming to be the second
wife of the deceased employee Sundarraj, has also filed a suit in O.S.
No. 350 of 2008 and the same was dismissed for default on 24.01.2011.
Thereafter, she made a representation along with the judgement on
28.12.2011 and also obtained a legal heir certificate from the Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam, on 27.09.2012. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not
furnished with the terminal benefits and therefore, she was constrained to
approach this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 4245 of 2013
and this Court, by order dated 09.04.2013, directed the fifth respondent t
to dispose the petitioner's representation dated 03.10.2012 within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
Thereafter, only on 01.08.2016, the Department of Rural Development
(Audits) has sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,87,780/- towards the terminal
benefits due to the petitioner and the monthly pension of sum of Rs.
1,275/- was also sanctioned. Thereafter, on 14.03.2017, a further sum of
Rs.2,73,956/- was sanctioned as death-cum-retirement gratuity and
arrears of pension from 27.11.2005 to 04.10.2011 was also sanctioned.
4. The grievances of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has
obtained a decree in the year 2011 and the fifth respondent has also
recommended on 28.12.2011, the third respondent has delayed the
payment of retirement benefits and therefore, she is entitled for interest
with effect from 28.12.2011, on which date, the fifth respondent sent the
proposal to the third respondent.
5. Mr.A.Kannan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the several
litigations pending in this issue, the respondents were not in a position to
pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner and it is not intentional.
Though the husband of the petitioner died in the year 2005, there were
two rival claims and the petitioner has also filed a Civil Suit in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
2006 and the same was decreed only in the year 2011. The another
woman, who claims right over the terminal benefits, has also filed the
Suit in O.S. No. 350 of 2008 and the same was also pending till
24.01.2011. Therefore, in view of the multiple litigations, the
respondents were not in a position to disburse the amount in time.
6. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record.
7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's husband died in the
year 2005 and her name is also mentioned as nominee in the Service
Register. However, there was a claim from another woman. Therefore,
the authorities has suggested the petitioner to approach the competent
civil Court for appropriate orders. The petitioner has also filed a suit
before the District Munsif Court in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 and the said suit
was also decreed in favour of the petitioner on 29.07.2011. The another
Suit filed by the another claimant in O.S. No. 350 of 2008 was also
dismissed on 24.01.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
8. Based on these developments and the orders of the Civil Court,
the fifth respondent has also made a recommendation to the third
respondent for disbursal of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner
on 28.12.2011. However, the same was processed only on 01.08.2016,
where the part amount was paid and the remaining amount was paid only
on 14.03.2017.
9. The learned Additional Government Pleader given an
explanation that there were two legal heir certificates, one was submitted
by the petitioner and another was submitted by the another claimant.
Therefore, the respondents requested the legal heirs to get a legal
certificate from the Competent Authority and that was obtained by the
petitioner only in the year 2012. Therefore, the respondents processed the
application and granted the relief in the year 2016. This explanation
offered by the respondents have not been accepted. The issue involved in
the Civil Suit itself is for declaring who is the legal heir of the deceased
employee Sundarraj. The issue was already decided by the Competent
Civil Court on 29.07.2011 and even before that, the claim of other
claimant was rejected by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 350 of 2008 on
24.01.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
10. Based on the orders of the Civil Court, the fifth respondent has
made a proposal on 28.12.2011. Even then it appears that they have
insisted the legal heir certificate and the legal heir certificate was also
obtained by the petitioner on 27.09.2012 from the Tahsildar,
Thirumangalam. Even thereafter, the respondents have taken
considerable time to disburse the retirement benefits. The case espousing
the manner in which some of the Government officers are functioning.
The Department was kind enough to disburse the retirement benefits to a
widow of an employee, who served in the Department with considerable
delay.
11. After obtaining the decree from the Competent Civil Court, it
was also recommended by the fifth respondent that the third respondent
has not taken any initiative and therefore, the petitioner was constrained
to file W.P. No. 4245 of 2013 and this Court by order dated 09.04.2013
directed the respondents to make payment and to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 03.10.2012 within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Even then the
amount were not disbursed as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 4245 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
2013 and the petitioner is a poor widow was not in a position to approach
the Court of Law for the violation of the orders of the Court. The part
amount was settled only on 01.08.2016 and the remaining amount was
settled on 14.03.2017. Therefore, the conduct of the third respondent
amounts to contempt and in order to prevent any such further incident in
the near future, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition with
exemplary cost.
12. It is settled law that the employer is liable to settle the
retirement benefits without any delay and the belated payment is liable to
be compensated by way of interest for the belated payment. In this
regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana
reported in 2008 (3) SCC 44, has 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 prescribed for
the purpose, the appellant may claim benefit of interest on that
basis. But even in 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
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 living even
without issuing notice to the respondents.”
13. Accordingly the Writ Petition is allowed with a cost of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The respondents shall
pay interest to the belated payment on terminal benefits with effect from
09.06.2013 till the payment of terminal benefits at the rate of 6%. The
Department is at liberty to recover the cost amount and the interest
amount from the concerned employee, who is responsible for the delay.
The first respondent shall disburse the amount within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
31.01.2022
Index :Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
vji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The state of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Rural Development,
4th Floor, St.George,
Chennai - 600 108.
2. The Director,
Department of Rural Development (Audit),
Kurazhagam, 4th Floor,
Chennai - 600 108.
3. The Director,
Local Fund Audit,
4th Floor, Nandhanam,
Chennai - 600 035.
4. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
5. The Commissioner,
Thirumangalam Panchayat Union,
Madurai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P (MD) No.11373 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vji
WP. (MD). 11373 of 2021
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
