Madras High Court
K.V.Mani vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 23 August, 2023
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
1.K.V.Mani
2.S.Vijayalakshmi
3.R.Sahadevan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department(MAWS),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-9
2.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department(MAWS),
Chepauk,
Chennai-5
3.The Commissioner,
Salem Corporation,
Salem ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant
and disburse interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits
payable to the petitioners from the date of retirement till the date of actual
payment, alongswith Time Barred Arrears of Tax, at the rate of 12% per
annum by considering the representation submitted by the petitioners
dated 17.09.2009 in the light of orders passed by this Court in
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
Government of Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary to Government
Vs.M.Deivasigamani reported in 2009 3 MLJ 242 within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.N.Amarnath
For Respondents
For R1 & 2 : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar,
Government Advocate
For R3 : Mrs.N.Devi,
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for direction to the
respondents to grant interest for the belated payment of retirement
benefits.
2. The first petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector and
retired from service on 31.01.2006, the second petitioner was working as
Assistant Revenue Officer and retired from service on 31.01.2004 and the
third petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner and retired from
service on 31.05.2004. Though they were entitled for retirement benefits
on the eve of their attainment of superannuation, they were paid
retirement benefits belatedly by referring to charges that were kept
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
pending. After the charges were dropped, the petitioners were settled of
retirement benefits and as such they are claiming interest for the belated
payment on retirement benefits. The petitioners were served with charge
memo under Rule 8(2) of Tamilnadu Municipal (Disciplinary and
Appeal) Rules on 21.02.2003 alleging that one G.Elangovan, who was
granted with licence to collect toll fee from the bus stand for the year
2002- 2003, failed to remit the licence fee to the Corporation. Whereas
the officials had failed to obtain solvency certificate and agreement.
Therefore, they are responsible for the loss sustained by the Corporation.
Enquiry was conducted and report was submitted. In the meanwhile, a
proceedings was initiated as against the said Elangovan for recovery of
the licence fee. Accordingly, on 19.06.2007, licence fee was recovered
from him. Thereafter, the charges framed against the petitioners were
dropped on 15.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioners were paid
retirement benefits on 10.06.2008 and 11.08.2008 respectively.
3. On perusal of the counter filed by the third respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
revealed that against the petitioners, charges were framed for non
collection of lease amount / bus stand licence fee causing loss to the tune
of Rs.51,58,569/-. However, the loss amount was recovered by the third
respondent from the lessee only on 21.06.2007. Thereafter, the charges
were dropped on 15.05.2008. Immediately, all the petitioners were
disbursed with retirement benefits.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Government of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department Vs. M.Deivasigamani reported in (2009) 3 MLJ
1, wherein it is held that for the terminal benefits such as commuted value
of pension, leave encashment, gratuity, etc. which were withheld till the
finalisation of disciplinary proceedings and after completion of the
disciplinary proceedings, all the benefits were paid belatedly, the person
is entitled to interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits, in the
absence of any statutory rules/administrative instructions or guidelines.
5. In the case on hand, the charge itself was the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
failed to collect licence fee from one, G.Elangovan and subsequently
licence fee was recovered from the said Elangovan by installments.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% for the
belated payment on terminal benefits.
6. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to disburse the
interest amount at the rate of 12% for the period of belated payment of
terminal benefits, to the respective petitioners within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. With the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
23.08.2023
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
To
1.Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamilnadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department(MAWS),
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-9
2.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department(MAWS),
Chepauk,
Chennai-5
3.The Commissioner,
Salem Corporation,
Salem
4.The Government Advocate,
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.26840 of 2013
23.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
