Madras High Court
K.Kanthavel vs The Superintending Engineer on 1 September, 2023
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8957 and 8960 of 2023
K.Kanthavel ... Appellant/Petitioner
-vs-
The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District-623 503. ... Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set
aside the order, dated 06.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.14670 of 2019 on the
file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Kanthavel
Party-in-Person
For Respondent : Mr.T.S.Gopalan
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.]
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 06.04.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.14670 of 2019.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal
are as follows:-
2.1. The appellant was working as an Assessor in the respondent
Corporation and retired from service on 31.05.2016. It is the case of the
appellant that he submitted an application to the respondent on several dates
to settle the GPF amount with interest. Stating that the respondent failed to
settle the GPF amount along with interest, the appellant approached the
respondent for claiming GPF amount along with interest. The representation of
the petitioner for retrospective payment of the GPF amount was turned out on
the ground that the petitioner had not applied into the format in which, he
was required to submit his GPF claim. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ
petition to quash the order dated 29.03.2019 by which, the petitioner's
representation for grant of GPF was turned out. The prayer also was to issue
direction to the respondent to settle the appellant's GPF amount along with
interest for the year 2016 to 2019.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
2.2. Pending writ petition, the writ petition filed by the appellant, a
direction was issued to the respondent to settle the GPF amount due. In
compliance of the direction, it is submitted before this Court that the
appellant received the entire amount due by a demand draft on 17.06.2019.
However, it is stated that the demand draft was made ready even in March
2019 by the respondent. Even though the amount is settled, the appellant
asked interest for the delayed payment of GPF. However, the learned Single
Judge turned out the request for payment of the interest as the appellant was
in default who has to be blamed for non-submission of the claim in the
prescribed format.
3. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant was serving in
establishment and therefore, he knows the formality and the requirement of
filing the claim in a prescribed format. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would rely upon the letter that was addressed to the appellant
dated 06.11.2015 by which, the appellant was asked to fill up the GPF
amount and to send it. The pension booklet and no due certificate was also
sent along with the said letter so as to enable the appellant to make a claim in
the prescribed format.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
4. The appellant also made a claim regarding disputing his actual date
of retirement on the ground that his actual date of birth is not 1956. Having
regard to the facts narrated and the findings of the learned Single Judge, this
Court also finds that the appellant has failed to submit the application in the
prescribed format. However, the fact remains that the payment which was due
in 2016 was disbursed only after about three years. Even though the appellant
has to blame for his failure to submit the claim in the prescribed format,
disbursement of GPF amount could have been settled earlier without there
being a delay of three years. It is admitted that the appellant's claim was
considered on the ground that amount was settled even without the
prescribed format. Even if the application is not in the prescribed format, this
Court finds that it will be in equity and he shall be paid interest or at least a
reasonable amount considering the interest that may be payable on
Government securities. This Court, taking into consideration the interest that
is payable on Government securities and other circumstances, relating in this
case, fixes the rate of interest at 6% p.a., which will be appropriate. Having
regard to the period of delay, this Court directs the respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) towards interest for the delayed
payment of GPF amount.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
5. With the above direction, this Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
01.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sji
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji
W.A.(MD) No.1131 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8957 and 8960 of 2023
01.09.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
