Madras High Court
R.A. Ramachandran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 September, 2023
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.15895 of 2016
R.A. Ramachandran ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of collegiate Education,
O/o. The Director of collegiate Education,
9th Floor,EVK Sampath, Buildings,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
3.The Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education,
O/o. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai Region, Shenoy Nagar,
Madurai – 625 020.
4.The Principal,
Nadar Mahajana Sangam
S.Vellaichamy Nadar College,
Nagamalai,
Madurai – 635 019. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order in Na.Ka.No.
4474/Aa2/2015 on the file of the Respondent No.3 dated 30.03.2016 and
quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the
Respondents to provide interest at the rate of 12% for the belated
payment of Provident fund to the tune of Rs.8,19,621/- to the petitioner
from 28.02.2011 to 23.06.2014 within the time period stipulated by this
Court.
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karthik
for Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondent : Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar - for R1 to R3
Government Advocate
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar - for R4
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a
Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order in Na.Ka.No.4474/Aa2/2015 dated 30.03.2016 on the
file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and for a
consequential direction to the respondents to provide interest at the rate
of 12% for the belated payment of Provident fund to the tune of
Rs.8,19,621/- to the petitioner from 28.02.2011 to 23.06.2014 within the
time period stipulated by this Court.
2. Heard Mr.G.Karthik for Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Nirmal Kumar, learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
3. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on
28.02.2011 and his service was duly extended upto 31.05.2011. Since the
petitioner was not paid the provident fund, he approached this Court by
way of a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.1386 of 2016 for a Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order
inSavehka/A1/KakaEE/Tha.Vu.Sa/2015 on the file of the fourth
respondent dated 17.11.2015 and quash the same as illegal and for a
consequential direction to direct the respondents to provide interest at the
rate of 12% for the belated payment of Provident fund to the tune of
Rs.8,19,621/- to the petitioner from 28.02.2011 to 23.06.2014 within the
time period stipulated by this Court. By order, dated 22.01.2016, this
Court while disposing the said Writ Petition, has observed as under:
“3.According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the actual authority is the third respondent,
who has to decide about the payment of interest for
the belated settlement of terminal benefits. Hence, he
submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
by directing the third respondent to pass orders on the
representation of the petitioner dated 25.08.2015, in
the light of the decision of this Court in Government
of Tamil Nadu vs. M.Deivasigamani, reported in
(2009) 3 MLJ 1, which in turn relied on the Apex
Court judgment in S.K.Due vs. State of Haryana,
reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44, within the stipulated
period.
4.In view of such a narrow prayer made during
the hearing, the third respondent is directed to pass
orders on the representation of the petitioner dated
25.08.2015, on merits and in accordance with law, in
the light of the decision reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1
referred to above, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, W.M.P(MD)No.1162 of 2016 is
closed. ”
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
pursuant to the above order, by proceedings dated 30.03.2016, the third
respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there is
no provision in the Rules to calculate interest till the date of releasing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
money for closing the Provident Fund account and hence, the petitioner
is not entitled to the interest on the belated payment. The second
respondent failed to consider the same in the light of the judgment
reported in 2009(3) MLJ-1. Challenging the same, the petitioner has
come forward with the present Writ Petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 basing on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
official respondent contends that the proposal for the disbursement of the
Provident Fund was sent by the fourth respondent on 29.04.2011. On
verification, there were some defects was found and it was returned back
to the fourth respondent on 29.09.2011 for rectification. Again the
proposal was sent by the fourth respondent on 21.10.2011 and again the
proposal was returned back to the fourth respondent on 01.12.2011 for
rectification of defects. On 03.02.2012, without rectifying the defects,
the fourth respondent sent proposals with same defects and thereafter, on
08.11.2013 the fourth respondent has submitted all relevant documents
and thereafter, after verification of all material record and disbursed the
amount of Rs.8,19,621/- as a Provident Fund to the petitioner on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
12.05.2014 and the same was credited to petitioner's account on
23.06.2014. The petitioner was retired from service on 28.02.2011 and
the Provident Fund was disbursed on 12.05.2014. The delay is incurred
only due to administrative reason. The fourth respondent has sent the
proposal with delay. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned
order. Moreover the petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate
Authority /second respondent, if aggrieved over the order passed by the
third respondent and without exhausting the alternative remedy has come
forward with the present Writ Petition which is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent
basing on the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent contends
that a delay of about 2 months from 02.12.2011 to 03.02.2012 occurred
by the fourth respondent College due to various administrative reasons
and the delay of about 27 months from 03.02.2012 to 12.05.2014
occurred only by the third respondent. The third respondent now
improving the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 in their counter affidavit
by raising a new stand that the delay occurred only due to the fourth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
respondent. The said allegation is not sustainable. The petitioner also
raised the above issues only on 25.08.2015 and had not taken any steps to
redress his grievance between 31.05.2011 to 12.05.2014. The prayer
against the fourth respondent College for the delayed payment of
petitioner's Provident Fund is liable to dismissed.
7. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material placed
on record.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on
31.05.2011. Though, his retiral benefits were settled in the year 2011,
his Provident Fund was settled in the year 2014. According to the
respondents 1 to 3, there is absolutely no delay on the part of the
respondents 1 to 3, since the proposals for sanction of Provident Fund
was sent by the fourth respondent with a delay and therefore, the
disbursement of the Provident Fund was made on 12.05.2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
9. 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing
the petition in living even without issuing notice to
the respondents.”
10. Following the same, in a similar issue, a Division Bench of
this Court, in W.A.(MD)No.403 of 2010, etc. batch, vide common order
dated 04.07.2014, has held as follows:
“5. ..... even though there is no provision in
the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
Employees Pension Fund for payment of interest,
cannot stand in the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in S.K.Dua v. State of Haryana and
another, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 44. As a matter of
fact, the Rules do not contemplate belated payment of
retirement benefits. The Rules contemplate prompt
payment. When the Rules contemplate prompt
payment and not bleated payment, the Rules will not
contain a provision for payment of interest. The
Pension Fund which was created as a Trust by the
Corporation was supposed to act in trust for the
employees' benefit. If the Trust could not make
payments within the time stipulated, then, irrespective
of whether there is any provision for payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
interest or not, the Corporation is obliged to make
payment.”
The Division Bench has also fixed the rate of interest at 6% per annum.
11. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed with
the following directions :
1) Directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
pay interest for the belated payment of retirement
benefits at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of retirement till the date of actual disbursement,
within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order;
2) However, taking note of the
submission made by the learned Government
Advocate that there was no delay on the part of
the respondents 1 to 3 and it was only because the
fourth respondent sent the pension proposals
belatedly, it is made clear that it is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
respondents 1 to 3 to recover the amount paid
towards belated payment from the fourth
respondent;
3) No costs; and
4) Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.09.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of collegiate Education,
O/o. The Director of collegiate Education,
9th Floor,EVK Sampath, Buildings,
College Road,
Chennai – 600 006.
3.The Regional Joint Director of collegiate Education,
O/o. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Madurai Region, Shenoy Nagar,
Madurai – 625 020.
4.The Principal,
Nadar Mahajana Sangam
S.Vellaichamy Nadar College,
Nagamalai,
Madurai – 635 019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
W.P(MD) No.22180 of 2016
21.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
