Madras High Court
N.Vellaichamy vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 September, 2023
WP.No.26402/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 14.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.No.26402/2018
N.Vellaichamy ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Tamil Development & Information
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director of Tamil Development
Tamil Valarchi Valagam, 1st Floor
Tamil Salai, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
entire records pertaining to the impugned letters of communication issued by
the 3rd Respondent - director of Tamil Developmnet in Na.Ka.No.3976/Ni-
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
1/2014 dated 19.06.2014 Na.Ka.No.Ni-1/7026/2014 dated 14.08.2014
Na.Ka.No.Ni1/7614/2014 dated 22.09.2014 Na.Ka.No.Ni-1/2371/2015
dated 11.05.2015 Na.Ka.No.Ni-1/714/2016 dated 26.02.2016 dated
16.09.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
pay interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum with effect from 01.05.2008
for the delay in making the payment of a sum of Rs.5 19 996/- being the
benefits of arrears of salary dues in the promoted post of Assistant Director
of Tamil Development and Deputy Director of Tamil Development with
effect from 18.10.1990 and 20.09.2000 respectively, till the payment of
arrears of salary was actually remitted into the petitioner's savings bank
account through ECS on 24.06.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Elanchezhiyan
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran, AGP
ORDER
(1) The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus seeking records relating to the letters issued by the 3rd
respondent, Director of Tamil Development and to quash all the letters
and to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 24% per annum with
effect from 01.05.2008 for the delay in making payment of a sum of
Rs.5,19,996/- being the benefit of arrears of salary due in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
promoted post of Assistant Director of Tamil Development and
Deputy Director of Tamil Development with effect from 18.10.1990
and 20.09.2000 respectively till the date of actual payment of the
arrears of salary which was remitted to the Savings Bank Account of
the petitioner on 24.06.2013.
(2) In effect, the petitioner claims that for the arrears of salary which had
been credited to his account through ECS on 24.06.2013, to a sum of
Rs.5,19,996/-, the respondents are also liable to pay interest from
01.05.2008 till 24.06.2013 @ 24% per annum.
(3) The petitioner had entered the Government service as Typist in the
office of the Director of Tamil Development on 12.01.1972. he had
been promoted to the post of Assistant, Superintendent, Assistant
Director and Deputy Director and finally, he retired from the
Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on
30.04.2007 as Deputy Director in the Department of Tamil
Development.
(4) When he was working as Superintendent, the respondents had
rejected his request for promotion to the post of Assistant Director.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
This necessitated the petitioner to file OA.No.226/2000 before the
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. Notice had been directed by the
Tribunal. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 03.04.2002, the earlier
order issued on 14.05.1992, had been cancelled and effect was given
to an order dated 15.05.1991 and the service of the petitioner in the
post of Superintendent was regularised with effect from 15.05.1985.
Thereafter, the petitioner had further grievances with respect to
promotion to the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director. On
abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
OA.No.226/2000 which was filed by the petitioner, was transferred to
this Court and renumbered as WP.No.4267/2006. The writ petition
was dismissed on 08.03.2007. The petitioner then filed a writ appeal
in WA.No.665/2007. By a judgment dated 03.04.2008, the writ
appeal was allowed. It was directed that necessary promotion should
be granted to the petitioner and proceedings should be issued within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that
particular order. It was also stated that terminal benefits and other
benefits should be paid to the appellant therein. The present writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
petition has been filed on the ground that though such stipulation was
given by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 03.04.2008, the
respondents had finally settled the terminal benefits of Rs.5,19,996/-
only on 24.06.2013 when the amount was transferred through ECS to
the savings bank account of the petitioner. It is therefore stated that
interest should be paid by the respondents for belated payment. The
writ petition has been filed seeking such payment of interest.
(5) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
(6) The Court had the benefit of examining the records and more
particularly, the sequence of events after the judgment was passed in
the writ appeal. The date of passing the judgment in the writ appeal
was 03.04.2008. Thereafter, the respondents had actually complied
with the direction to grant promotion to the petitioner from the post of
Superintendent to Assistant Director and also as Deputy Director by
G.O.Ms.No.133, Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and
Information Department dated 11.06.2009. It is thus seen that within
a period of ten months, the order had been passed granting promotion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
to the petitioner to the post he sought, namely, the post of Deputy
Director. But however, in the said Government Order, it had been
stated that promotion would be considered notionally. Questioning
that particular aspect, in the year 2010, after nearly a year, the
petitioner filed WP.No.24502/2010. It is thus seen that though the
respondents had passed an order, the petitioner had thought it
necessary to question the same by filing a writ petition in the year
2010. That writ petition was pending before this Court for a period of
2 years. It was finally taken up for final hearing on 27.09.2012. On
that particular date, a learned Single Judge had expressed an opinion
that the petitioner was seeking consequential reliefs to an order passed
by the Division Bench and therefore, stated that papers should be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to be placed before the
Division Bench. Final orders in the writ petition were not passed.
(7) The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to clarify as to the
status of the said writ petition as on date. In stead of proceeding
further with the writ petition, the petitioner had taken an alternate
remedy by filing a contempt petition. He had filed a contempt petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
in Cont.P.No.256/2013. This again indicates that the petitioner had
abandoned the writ petition which he had filed, namely,
WP.No.24502/2010 and independently filed Cont.P.No.256/2013.
Thus, the time period from the year 2009 was moved to 2010. The
petitioner filed a writ petition and when orders were passed, directing
to place the writ petition before the Division Bench, the petitioner had
taken a conscious decision to abandon that particular writ petition and
then, had independently filed Cont.P.No.256/2013. The contempt
petition came up before the Division Bench of this Court. It was
finally ordered on 25.04.2013. At that time, it was observed by the
Division Bench that compliance had been made and a detailed order
had been passed on 20.04.2013. Thus, the passage of time, year after
year, can be easily explained. It cannot be stated that there had been
a deliberate delay on the part of the respondents. There are
administrative sanctions to be obtained and the file will have to move
from one desk to another and even the petitioner himself has also
delayed in filing a writ petition after more than a year from the date on
which the Government Order was passed granting the petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
notional promotion and thereafter, had filed a contempt petition after
abandoning the writ petition filed for the very same relief which writ
petition was directed to be placed before a Division Bench. Till date,
this Court does not know as to what had happened to that particular
writ petition.
(8) The amount had been finally sanctioned and transferred to the
account of the petitioner on 24.06.2013 within a period of two months
from the date on which final orders had been passed, as stated before,
by the Division Bench. Thus, I hold that there is no inordinate delay
and further hold that the delay, if at all had also occurred owing to
various petitions filed by the petitioner herein and during the
pendency of either the writ petition or of more particularly,
WP.No.24502/2010, the respondents would not be in a position to
pass any orders. They would naturally await orders of the Court. The
delay is, therefore, explainable.
(9) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a
learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2012 [5] MLJ 230
[R.Velusamy Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Municipal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
Administration, Ezhilagam, Chennai and Others]. In that particular
case, it had been found that orders have been passed by the Tribunal
on 12.05.2004 in OA.No.2065/2004 and there had been no appeal
filed and the order had become final on the date of passing of the
order of the Tribunal. Therefore, it was directed that interest should
be paid since the terminal benefits had been disbursed only on
01.08.1998. In the instant case, the delay, as is seen from the above
narration, can be and is explainable. Therefore, the ratio laid down in
the judgment cited supra, would not be applicable to the facts of this
case.
(10) The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the
judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in WP [MD]
No.20062/2013 [B.Thirumoorthy Vs. The Secretary to Government,
Highways Department, Chennai and Another]. By an order dated
22.03.2017, the learned Single Judge was called upon to examine the
issue of delay and grant of interest. It is seen that in that particular
case, the petitioner therein had joined duty on revocation of the order
of suspension on 23.10.1999 and the salary between 08.02.1999 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
22.10.1999 was actually paid only 13.10.2010, after a delay of 11
years. The only reason advanced was administrative reasons.
Holding that, that was not a good justification, the learned Judge
directed interest to be paid. Again, the facts are distinguishable. In
the present case, where the delay is explainable, as is seen, is also
partly responsible since the petitioner had earlier filed
WP.No.24502/2010 which was pending on the file of this Court for
nearly about two years and thereafter, after one further year,
abandoning the said writ petition, though it had not been disposed of
by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner had filed a contempt
petition.
(11) The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 [4] SCC
164 [Union of India and Another Vs. S.N.Maity and Another]. The
learned counsel placed specific reliance on the following portion in
paragraph No.24 of the said judgment:-
''24...... In the present case, we are of the
considered view, the appellant should not suffer the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
loss of salary, but if we direct for his reinstatement as
the High Court has done, it will create an anomalous
situation. It would be, in our considered view, not apt
at this juncture and, therefore, the cause of justice
would be best subserved if he is allowed to get the
entire salary that was payable to him for the post
of CGPDTM for the balance period, that is, five years
minus the period he had actually served and drawn
salary. The balance amount shall be paid with interest
@ 9% p.a. within three months hence.''
(12) It is thus seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, as an alternate to
grant of reinstatement, directed that salary should be paid and since
reinstatement was not granted, directed interest to be paid on the
arrears of salary which the 1st respondent therein would have been
entitled to. The Division Bench of the High Court, from which appeal
arose, had directed reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had
given an alternate relief and instead of reinstatement, directed
payment of salary with interest. Again, the facts are distinguishable
and would not be applicable to the facts of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
(13) As repeatedly pointed out, the records reveal that there is no
inordinate delay and further, the delay is explainable. I am not
inclined to grant any interest. The petitioner had received the entire
amount. He should be satisfied with that.
(14) The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
14.09.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Tamil Development & Information
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
3.The Director of Tamil Development
Tamil Valarchi Valagam, 1st Floor
Tamil Salai, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.26402/2018
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
WP.No.26402/2018
14.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
