IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:08.10.2010
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
Writ Petition No.7344 of 2008
S.Muruganandam ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Secretary t Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3.The Joint Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services,
Nagappattinam. ... Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner for the belated payment of DCRG at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from 01.03.2006 to 20.02.2008 within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner ... Mr.S.M.Subramaniam
For Respondents ... Mr.P.Gurunathan,
Spl.Government Pleader.
ORDER
The writ petitioner was working as the Administrative Officer in the office of the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Nagappattinam, and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. It is the case of the petitioner that he was allowed to retire on 28.02.2006 and there was no charge or any complaint pending against him at the time when he was relieved. However, the pensionary benefits and other terminal benefits were not settled by the respondents in time. It is submitted that though the Accountant-General of Tamil Nadu has sanctioned Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) on 06.06.2006, the amount was not paid immediately for want of ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Directorate and there has been administrative delay and ultimately DCRG and other benefits were paid to him only on 20.02.2008 and the delay of two years is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is stated that inspite of repeated representations of the petitioner, the amount was not paid in time. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed for a direction against the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner for the belated payment of DCRG at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from 01.03.2006 to 20.02.2008.
2.Even though the respondents have not filed counter affidavits, on instruction, learned Government Advocate has made his submissions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.M.Subramaniam and the learned Government Advocate.
3.A reference to the order of the 1st respondent, dated 28.02.2006, in G.O.(Rt.)No.458,Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department, shows that the petitioner was unconditionally relieved on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006. The said order also shows that a sum of Rs.77,557/- towards House Building Advance balance interest has to be recovered from his DCRG in full, further stating that if any other Government dues are pending the same has to be recovered from his DCRG. The 3rd respondent, namely the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Nagappattinam, in his proceedings Rc.No.446/2006/E2, dated 19.06.2006, has, in categoric terms, certified that against the petitioner, who was retired from service on 28.02.2006, there are no disciplinary proceedings pending for disposal or contemplated and no provisional pension was sanctioned and paid to the individual. Thereafter, on 29.11.2006, the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Tiruvarur, has also issued “No Objection Certificate” to the effect that during the service period of the petitioner in the said office between 17.04.1997 and 18.11.2003 and his services in Mannargudi Government Hospital between 19.11.2003 and 27.11.2005 and also between 28.12.2005 and 29.12.2005 there was no audit objection either by the State Level Audit Committee or by the Head of Department Internal Audit or by the Regional Audit Committee and there was no order of recovery pending against the petitioner. Such a certificate has also been issued by the 3rd respondent on 27.12.2006 for the period 30.12.2005 to 28.02.2006. The 3rd respondent has also issued another certificate on 29.12.2006 stating that during the period between 30.12.2005 and 28.02.2006, the petitioner was not liable to pay any amount towards governmental dues.
4.Therefore, on facts, it is clear and also not in dispute that there was no impediment for payment of DCRG to the petitioner immediately after his retirement. As per G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 20.02.1995, the Government has directed payment of interest for the belated payment of DCRG in respect of State Government Employees based on the instructions issued by the Government of India. A perusal of the said Government Order shows that in cases where the payment of DCRG has been delayed, the rate of interest payable to the retired employee shall be at 12% per annum compounded annually. The relevant portion of the said Government Order is as follows:
“3.The Government have carefully examined the question of revision of rate of interest for the delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity and have decided to adopt the Government India orders referred to in para 2 above in respect of State Government employees. They accordingly direct that when payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity has been delayed, the rate of interest shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum compounded annually.”
5.It was in Government of Tamil Nadu v. M.Deivasigamani – (2009) 3 MLJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court has held that an employee is entitled to claim interest on the belated payment of pension and other retirement benefits, even in the absence of any statutory rules or administrative instructions, since such a right flows from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was, in fact, in S.K.Due v. Stte of Haryana – (2008) 3 SCC 44, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the payment of retirement benefits is not a bounty but it is the legal obligation of the employer and the retired employee has a fundamental right to claim such amount as a matter of livelihood. In paragraph 14, the Supreme Court 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 the 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 opinion, the High Court was not right in dismissing the petition in limine even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
6.It was, following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the above said conclusion. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that the delay caused in payment of DCRG to the petitioner can never be attributed to the conduct of the petitioner. In such circumstances, there is absolutely no difficulty to conclude that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of interest on the belated payment of DCRG. On facts, it is also clear that the amount liable to be paid by way of DCRG immediately after his retirement, i.e. on 01.03.2006, came to be paid only on 20.02.2008 and there has been substantial delay of two years, which is solely attributable to the conduct of the respondents.
7.In such view of the matter, by relying upon the Government Order cited above which stipulates payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the belated payment of DCRG amount, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the respondents to pay interest for the belated payment of DCRG to the petitioner for the period between 01.03.2006 and 20.02.2008 and such amount shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Index:yes/no.
Internet:yes/no. 08.10.2010
gb
P.JYOTHIMANI,J
gb
To:
1.The Secretary t Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services,
Teynampet, Chennai-6.
3.The Joint Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services, Nagappattinam.
Pre-delivery Order in
W.P.No.7344/2008
Dated:08.10.2010